1. ' MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J---Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Naib Qasid with the respondent No,1 on temporary basis w,e,f, 3-1-1995. However the appointment letter Was not communicated to the petitioner and consequently on the recommendation of the Review Committee duly approved by the Syndicate vide Resolution No,51
(10) of its 51st meeting held on 31-9-1996 the respondent No,2 Vice-Chancellor Sindh Agricultural University, Tando Jam was pleased to regularize the appointment of the petitioner as Naib Qasid against the vacant post in the office/Department of Veterinary Microbiology w,e,f, 3-1-1995. On receiving the order dated 13-8-1996 the petitioner reported for duty on 2-9-1996. The letter datcd 30-6-2004 written by the Chairman, Department of Microbiology shows that the petitioner started performing his duty and after one month of his joining the duty he was verbally told by some officers that his appointment order was cancelled and he was no more Naib Qasid. This information was given to the Chairman Department of Microbiology by the petitioner. According to the letter written by the Chairman Department of Microbiology the petitioner perused his case but failed to get the post of Naib Qasid. After waiting for a long period he filed mercy appeal. The comments of the Chairman Department of Microbiology were called. The Chairman reported that no order of cancellation of the appointment letter of the petitioner was received from any quarter.
2. The Chairman recommended that the mercy appeal of the petitioner be considered on humanitarian ground and further communicated his agreement to accept the services of the petitioner in the Department of Microbiology. However, the mercy petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the order communicated through the Deputy Registrar Administration, vide letter dated 11-11-2-2004.
3. ' Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction to the respondents to allow him to join his duty as a regular employee of the University.
4. ' The parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that an application dated 22-12-1994 was received from the petitioner for appointment against the post of Naib Qasid. The petitioner was appointed as Naib Qasid. It is alleged that the petitioner has wrongly averred that the appointment letter dated 3-1-1995 was not received by him. It is further alleged that the appointment order in favour of the petitioner issued by the ex Vice-Chancellor "Dr.Irshad Ali Soomro was cancelled on receipt of directives from the Governor/Chancellor of the University vide letter dated 23-2-1995. It is admitted that on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted by the new Vice-Chancellor Dr. Rajab Ali Memon, in connection with the appointments made by the ex Vice-Chancellor Dr. Irshad Ali, the appointment of petitioner was regularized w,e,f, 21-9-1995. It is admitted that after the approval of the Syndicate the letter dated 13-8-1996 was issued and handed over to the petitioner. It is also admitted that the petitioner duly reported for duty on 2-9-1996 as Naib Qasid. It is stated that the petitioner was required to joint his duty within one week as per terms and conditions of appointment order dated 3-1-1995 but the petitioner joined his duties after 20 days of receiving the letter on regularization of his duty, therefore, his appointment order was cancelled. It is further alleged that the petitioner filed appeal after eight years which was barred by time. It is denied that the report from the Chairman Department of Microbiology was called. It is alleged that the order communicating the dismissal of appeal has been issued with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.
5. ' We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and the learned Additional A.G.
6. ' Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Mughal learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contentions as narrated above. He has submitted that admittedly the appointment of the petitioner was regularized and he joined his service and that thereafter no order cancelling the appointment order or terminating the services of the petitioner was communicated and merely on verbal order the petitioner was not allowed to perform his duties and he has been pursuing his remedy but to no avail. Mr. Mughal has submitted that since the respondents have acted in flagrant violation of the law, rules and regulations therefore the question of running of any limitation does not arise.
7. ' Mr. Muhammad Younus Behan learned counsel for the respondents has conceded that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis vide letter dated 3-1-1995 and there is nothing on record to show that the said appointment letter was received by the petitioner. He has further conceded that the appointment of the petitioner was regularized vide office order dated 13-8-1996 and the said order was served on the petitioner who joined his duty on 2-9-1996. He has contended that thereafter he remained absent from duty. Mr. Behan has submitted that since the petitioner remained absent from duty for a very long period, therefore, the appeal preferred by him was barred by time and was rejected accordingly. However, during the course of arguments Mr. Behan has conceded that there is nothing on record to show that any order of cancellation of the appointment was served on the petitioner or A any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for remaining absent from duty. Consequently no termination order or any order imposing any penalty against the petitioner was passd.
8. ' After going through the comments filed on behalf of the respondents and hearing Mr. Behan learned counsel for the respondents we are of the considered opinion that admitted fact is that the appointment of the petitioner was regularized vide letter dated 13-8-1996, the petitioner joined his services as admitted by the respondents and thereafter he became victim of the high handedness of the respondents who inspite of being educationist acted in a manner which is not expected from any reasonable person. The petitioner has not been dealt with in accordance with law. The act of the respondents is in flagrant violation of law, rules and regulations and against the norms of decency and morality. The respondents instead of acting in straightforward manner have tried to wriggle out of their own illegalities. It is an admitted position that the appointment letter dated 3-1- 1995 was never served on the petitioner but a plea has been taken that as per terms and conditions of appointment order dated 3-1-1995 the petitioner was required to report for duty within seven days. The plea is very strange. When the letter dated 3-1-1995 was admittedly not served on the petitioner the question of joining the duties within seven days thereof never arose.
9. Moreover with the regularization of the service of the petitioner vide order dated 13-8-1996 all the earlier acts and omissions were condoned, and thereafter the petitioner was to be governed in accordance with the letter dated 13-8-1996. Mr. Behan has frankly conceded that there is nothing in the letter dated 13-8-1996 to show that he was required to join service within seven days. We have already observed that the petitioner joined service on 2-9-1996 and according to the report of the Chairman Department of Microbiology, he performed his duties for one month. The contention that the petitioner remained absent from duty and therefore his appointment was cancelled is also untenable because Mr. Behan has conceded that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on account of his absence from duty. The letter dated 30-8-2004 written by the Chairman Department of Microbiology to the Deputy Registrar (Establishment) Sindh Agricultural University Tan& Jam, further belies the contention. He has stated that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy after verbal communication of the cancellation of .His appointment and failed to get the remedy whereafter he preferred his mercy appeal.
10. ' The office objection and the objection raised by Mr. Behan that the petitioner should approach the Services Tribunal is overruled for the reason that there is no final order enabling the petitioner to approach the Services Tribunal.4,-In fact as already observed no order has been communicated at all to the petitioner with the result that he was not in a position, even to make representations to the competent authority.
11. ' At this juncture we would like to observe with emphasis that there is no room for verbal orders in the realm of public administration. Every order has to be passed in writing and the verbal orders have no validity.
12. ' For the foregoing reasons we are of the considered opinion that the respondents have acted in an illegal manner not warranted in law and the petitioner has been dealt with in flagrant violation of the law, thereby, depriving him of his lawful rights. The learned A.A.G. Has stated that the direction for payment of back-benefit to the petitioner shall create difficulties and therefore if the direction is being issued to the respondents for allowing the petitioner to join his services, no direction be issued for payment of the back-benefits. Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Mughal learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner merely claims salary for a period of one month when he performed his duties and is prepared to forego the remaining salary till his joining the services afresh.
13. ' In view of the above statement the petitioner is allowed in the terms that the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join his services as Naib Qasid on regular basis in the Department of Microbiology within two weeks. The respondents are further directed to pay one month's salary to the petitioner for the period, the petitioner performed duties prior to the verbal order directing him to relinquish the duties. The petitioner shall be paid salary in future if he joins the duty within a period of two weeks as directed above.
14. ' All the listed applications have been rendered infructuous which are disposed of accordingly.