DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W), MURREE, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by education department officials against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the termination of the respondent's service as a P.T.C. Teacher. The core legal questions involved whether a regular appointment made through proper departmental recruitment could be terminated summarily based on a High Court order in proceedings to which the employee was not a party, and whether a service appointment could be made on a 'purely temporary basis' contrary to service rules. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly concluded that the High Court order was not binding on the respondent as she was not a party, and that the concept of 'purely temporary basis' is alien to the service rules, rendering the regular appointment immune from summary termination. The key principle laid down is that a regular civil servant appointed in the prescribed manner cannot have their services terminated summarily under a 'purely temporary' stipulation, nor can they be adversely affected by judicial proceedings to which they were not a party.
- Whether a judgment of the High Court is binding on a civil servant who was not a party to the proceedings?
- Does the concept of purely temporary basis exist under the Punjab Civil Services Act 1974 and applicable service rules?
- Can the services of a regularly appointed civil servant made through a Departmental Recruitment Committee be terminated summarily?
- Section 2(2), Punjab Civil Services Act 1974
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Deputy District Education Officer (W), Murree and District Education Officer (W), Rawalpindi seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 19-9-1994 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and the order terminating her service set aside.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that Mst. Rukhsana Bibi was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher in BS-7 on 8-2-1993 against a vacant post after approval of the Departmental Recruitment Committee formed by the Government of Punjab, Education Department vide its Notification dated 10-8-1A92. Her services were, however, terminated vide letter dated 15-5-1993 purportedly under the orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore conveyed through the Advocate-General, Punjab. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent after preferring a departmental appeal and receiving no response thereto filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which, as stated above, was accepted vide, the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition. He has not denied that the respondent was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court. That being so, the judgment/order of the High Court was not binding on her. Even otherwise, as rightly found by the learned Service Tribunal, she was appointed on regular basis on the recommendations of the relevant Departmental Recruitment Committee formed under the directions of the Government.
Her appointment letter also shows that her appointment was not subjected to probation clause. In the circumstances, the department was not left with any power to terminate her services.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the appointment letter of the respondent sought to 'contend that her appointment was made on purely temporary basis liable to termination on one month notice or surrender of one month pay in lieu thereof and as such her tenure was subject to termination at any time. This argument has been duly attended to by the learned Tribunal and it has been rightly held that there is no concept of "purely temporary basis" in the entire gamut of the service rules and accordingly no such stipulation could have been made in the letter of appointment. As noticed above, it was a regular appointment within the meaning. Of section 2(2) of Punjab Civil Services Act, 1974 as it was made in accordance with the prescribed manner and, therefore, it was not liable to summary termination.
5. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is not open to any exception. This petition is accordingly dismissed.