GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore Versus SAMEENA PARVEEN

ORDER

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.--- Through this order we intend to dispose of above captioned petitions filed against common judgment, dated 29-1-2008 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Cr.O.P. No.370/W and 561/W of 2007, Writ Petitions Nos.11525, 11263, 11516, 11662, 11663, 11766, 11881, 11835, 12136 and 12185 of 2007, 86, 123, 274, 345, 599, 643 and 11619 of 2008 filed by respondents were allowed and the impugned orders passed by petitioner/authority were set aside.

2. Briefly, stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant petitions are that respondents were appointed as PTC Teachers during the year 1995/1996 after completion of all legal requirements and they joined their respective place of posting. After sometime, their appointments were cancelled being bogus vide order No.277/E-1, dated 3-4-1998. This order was assailed before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore and same was declared to be without lawful authority in the case reported as Mst. Muqqadas Akhtar and another v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Education Department, Government of Punjab and another 2000 PLC (C.S.) 867. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:--

"Consequently the petitioners are declared to be in service and the action of the Headmasters/Incharge of the Schools stopping the petitioners from performance of their duties as PTC Teachers on the basis of the above said impugned order, is declared to be without lawful authority. It is, however, clarified that the department is at liberty to proceed against petitioners, if so desired, on individual basis under the relevant law and under the Punjab Civil Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975."

In view of above judgment, the respondents were absolved of the charges of bogus appointments. But later on once again the services of respondents were terminated vide order, dated 3-8-2005, which order was challenged before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore through Writ Petition No.16864 of 2005. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment, dated 11-12-2006 and the impugned order, was declared as illegal and without lawful authority. Similarly, one of the teachers namely Mst. Naseem Akhtar assailed the order, dated 3-8-2005 before Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore through Appeal No.903 of 2006 which was also allowed vide judgment, dated 4-9-2006. The said judgment was maintained by this Court in Civil Petition No.1960-L of 2006 vide judgment, dated 2-11-2006. On 26-9-2007 once again the services of respondents were terminated. Feeling aggrieved they filed above mentioned petitions before the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore which were allowed vide impugned judgment as stated above.

3. It is mainly contended by learned A.A.-G. Punjab appearing on behalf of petitioners that the jurisdiction of the learned High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in matters involving determination of terms and conditions of civil servants. She further contended that the appointments of the respondents were bogus and fake as they were never selected by the competent authority, therefore the orders of dismissal passed by departmental authority were in accordance with law, which did not call for any interference by this Court.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S. M. Tayyub, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of some of the respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended that appointments of respondents had taken place in accordance with rules and prescribed procedure. They submitted their applications in pursuance of advertisement of the posts of PTC Teachers. They passed the required test and were appointed by the competent authority. According to him, the respondents were in service for about 9-10 years and during this period no objection was raised, and subsequently on vague allegations they were dismissed from service. He further contended that cases of respondents were at par with Mst. Naseem Akhtar which was decided by this Court in Civil Petition No. 1960-L of 2006 vide judgment, dated 2-11-2006.

5. We have considered the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars. The matter has already been decided by this Court in the case of Mst. Naseem Akhtar (supra), and it has been held that the appointment orders of the respondents as PTC Teachers were genuine. It was held by this Court in the case of Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185 that if a Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant who litigated, and there were other civil servants, who may not have taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the said decision be extended to other civil servants also, who may not be parties to that litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum. This view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi and others 2005 SCMR 499 and it was held that according to Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law.

6. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that no ground for interference in the impugned judgment is made out. Accordingly, the petitions being devoid of force are dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

M.B.A./G-13/SC Petitions dismisse