SECRETARY, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE Versus SHAZIA ABBAS
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court regarding the termination of the respondent's service as a P.T.C. Teacher on a temporary basis. The core legal question is whether the termination of service of a government teacher can be challenged before the Service Tribunal or if a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court in view of the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act or whether the High Court properly exercised writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in service matters relating to civil servants?
- Does the termination of a temporary teacher's service fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against the dismissal of a constitutional petition relating to terms and conditions of service?
- Article 212, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
ORDER
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.--- The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13-10-1994 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High 'Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the ,judgment dated 1-9-1993 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court and the order dated 7-8-1993 passed by the petitioners terminating the service of the respondent were set aside.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 17-5-1993 the respondent was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher in BPS-7 by the Deputy District Education Officer, Kahuta. Her appointment was made purely on temporary basis and liable to termination on one month's notice or surrender one month's pay in lieu thereof. On .7-8-1993 the appointment of the respondent was cancelled. She filed writ petition before the High Court, who was pleased to dismiss the same in limine on 1-9-1993. Inter alia, the learned Judge observed that only course opened to the respondent was to have approached the Service Tribunal for red-ressal of her grievance under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the writ petition was not maintainable. The respondent filed Intra-Court Appeal before the High Court. On 13-10-1994 a Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to set aside the judgment dated 1-9-1993 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and also declared the order dated 7-8-1993 passed by the petitioners as being illegal. The Court further observed that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service throughout.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent was employee' of the Government and the only way opened for her was to challenge the termination of her service order passed by the petitioner before Service Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the High Court was barred in that respect under Article 212 of the Constitution.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that case of the respondent was not covered by section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act. Only remedy for her was to approach the High Court in writ petition.
5. It is to be seen whether the termination of the service of the respondent could be challenged before the Service Tribunal or the writ petition was competent before the High Court. The point , raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners needs consideration. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.
6. The appeal be fixed for hearing at any early date before the summer vacation
A.A./S-31/S Leave granted