2020 PLC(CS)N 16

SHAHID HUSSAIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT BALTISTAN

Citation2020 PLC(CS)N 16

CourtGilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Judge(s)Malik Haq Nawaz and Ali Baig

1. ALI BAIG, J. ----145 petitioners who are serving in Education Gilgit-Baltistan against various posts have preferred the instant Writ Petition under Article 186(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 read with enabling Articles of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, claiming therein that the respondents Nos.1 to 5 are bound to implement Notification No.SCC-Edu-2(9)/2014 dated 01-07-2015, whereby 464 upgraded posts of BPS-17 and above were re-distributed between Teaching/School cadre and Admin cadre. But the respondent No. 5 in utter disregard of the above referred notification has submitted the impugned working papers of the respondents Nos. 6 to 11 under the Notification NA-III-1(9)/2000 dated 28-01-2002, which has been revised vide the notification No.Sec.Edu-2(9)-2014 dated 01-07-2015, this act of respondents Nos.1 to 5 is against the law, rules and against the fundamental rights of the Teaching Staff of Education Department of Gilgit Baltistan, thus liable to be declared null and void. Lastly the petitioners have sought the following remedies in prayer clause of writ petition which are reproduced as under:--

2. In view of above submissions it is respectfully prayed that:--

(a) The impugned process of D.P.C/any outcome of the D.P.C may be declared null and void and the respondents may be directed to give effect to notification dated 01-07-2005 to meet the ends of justice.

(b) The respondents may be directed to give effect/implement the judgments of this Hon'ble court passed in Writ Petition No.40 of 2005, dated 09-09-2009 judgment dated 14-10-2009 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 40/2005, 41/2005 and 30/2006 and also order of this court dated 12-10-2011, passed in Writ Petition No.78/2011 to meet the ends of justice.

1. It is pertinent to mention here that at the outset of proceedings the learned counsel for the parties had stated that they will argue to the extent of confirmation/extension or otherwise of the status quo order passed by this court on pervious date of hearing but during arguments both learned counsel for the parties have also argued on merits of the writ petition also and we have also come to the conclusion that this writ petition shall be disposed of through this judgment.

2. The respondents contested the instant writ petition by filing their parawise comments in this court wherein they have repudiated the averments/contents of writ petition on various legal and factual grounds.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the respondent No.5 wrongly and illegally has forwarded working papers of respondents Nos.6 to 11 for their promotion in gross violation of notification dated 01-07-2015, and with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners had submitted an application to the respondent No.5 on 04-03-2019 for implementation of Notification No.Sec.Edu-2(9)/2014, dated 01-07-2015, but the respondents Nos.1 to 5 are reluctant to implement the aforesaid notification, therefore by accepting this writ petition the respondents Nos.1 to 5 may be directed to implement the aforesaid notification dated 01-07-2015.

4. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General, Mr. Muzaffar Ali Legal Adviser Education Department and Mr. Amjad Hussain Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.6 to 11 vehemently opposed this writ petition and controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the petitioners have failed to file departmental appeal before filing of this writ petition before this court therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Legal Adviser, Education Department and counsel for the respondents Nos.6 to 11 further argued that as per revised distribution of posts/notification dated 01-07-2015, seven posts in BPS-19 in Admin cadre (male) are lying vacant and the respondents Nos.6 to 11 are senior most officers in Admin cadre and are eligible for promotion therefore, the respondents No.5 has rightly forwarded working papers to respondent No.2 for constitution of D.P.C. The learned Assistant Advocate General and counsel for the respondents Nos.6 to 11 further argued that promotion of six senior most officers of Admin cadre/respondents Nos.6 to 11 shall not affect the rights of the present petitioners and will also not affect the notification dated 01-7-2015 rather working papers have been prepared in accordance with notification dated 01-7-2015 thus, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with mala fide intention which may be dismissed in the interest of justice.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that vide Notification No.Sec.Edu-2(9)/2014 dated 1st July 2015, the competent authority has re-distributed 464 upgraded posts in (BPS-17) to BPS-19 between school/teaching cadre and Admin cadre. The respondent No.5 in gross violation of afore said notification has prepared working papers of the respondents Nos.6 to 11 and forwarded the same to the Secretary Education/respondent No.2 for promotion of respondents Nos.6 to 11 against six vacant posts of (BPS-19).

7. For ease and convenience we would like to re-produce the contents of Notification No.Sec.Edu-2/(9)/2014 dated 1st July 2015 as under:--

3. In partial modification of the Directorate of Education, Gilgit Office Order No. DE-1- (47)/2004 dated 01-12-2004, the Secretary Education, Gilgit Baltistan has been pleased to approve revised distribution of 464 upgraded posts in BS-17 and above vide Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit Baltistan Division, Islamabad Letter No.NA-III-1(9)/2000 dated 28-01-2002 in Education Department, Gilgit Baltistan as under with immediate effect:-

4. Cadre

5. BS-20

6. BS-19

7. BS-18

8. BS-17

9. Total

10. Teaching (Male)

11. 03

12. 50

13. 114

14. 168

15. 335

16. Teaching (Female)

17. 01

18. 11

19. 28

20. 41

21. 81

22. Admin (Male)

23. 01

24. 07

25. 16

26. 23

27. 47

28. Admin (Female)

29. 00

30. 01

31. 00

32. 00

33. 01

34. Total

35. 05

36. 69

37. 158

38. 232

39. 464

8. Plain/bare reading of the aforesaid notification it reveals that 50 posts of BPS-19 have been reserved/meant for Teaching (male) cadre and 7 posts of (BPS-19) have been meant/reserved for Admin (male) cadre. The respondent No.5 has prepared working papers of six posts of Admin cadre for promotion of respondents Nos. 6 to 11 in accordance with their seniority cum fitness and has forwarded the same to the respondent No.2/Secretary Education for further process/constitution of Departmental promotion committee. The respondent No.5 has prepared and forwarded the working papers for promotion of the respondents Nos.6 to 11 strictly in accordance with above re-produced notification dated 01-07-2015 and no any right of the present petitioners has been affected by the respondents as quota of Teaching/School cadre is intact and petitioners can be promoted against the vacant posts of (BPS-19) meant for Teaching cadre i.e 50 posts of BPS-19. Thus we have come to conclusion that no fundamental right of the present petitioners has been infringed by the respondents and the petitioners have not been treated discriminately, hence this writ petition is not maintainable.

9. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.

10. Before parting with the judgment it is observed that time and again the officials of various cadres of Education Department Gilgit Baltistan are filing writ petitions against each other in this court due to non existence of their proper service rules and usually the higher authorities promote their blue eyed persons against various posts on political or other consideration , hence the Secretary Education is strictly directed to work and prepare proper services rules of all cadres i.e. Academic Administration, teaching cadre, office management cadre, EMIS cadre and technical cadre allowing them line of promotion in their own cadre to avoid/prevent futile aimless litigations and submit compliance report to this court within two months of the passing of this judgment through Registrar of this court for our perusal. The Registrar of this court is directed to forward certified true copy of this judgment to the Secretary Education Gilgit Baltistan for necessary action. File

40. ZC/101/GB Petition dismissed.