' JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).--- Relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of the instant appeal as emerged out from the memo. Of appeal are that several posts of Elementary Teachers under Prime Minister's Strength were created in 1993 in Sindh Province. For Dadu District 20 such posts were allocated. Appellant and many others being Intermediate and domiciled of Dadu District, applied for the same and as per order, dated 29-9-1994 issued by the District Education Officer (Female) Primary, Dadu, appellant was offered a post of Primary School Teacher.
After medical examination and verification of documents, appellant was issued appointment order, dated 22-10-1994 by the Sub-Divisional Education Officer (Female) Dada and she was posted at Government Girls Primary School, Arbi. She joined her duties on 22-10-1994 and her Service Book was also maintained. She was also paid salaries. However, in pursuance of Government's decision communicated vide letter, dated 13-6-1995, appointment orders of appellant and others were cancelled and their cases were ordered to be reconsidered as per recruitment procedure and as per letter dated 20-9-1995 all such teachers were relieved from their duties. Appellant and other teachers then submitted an application to the then Chief Minister, Sindh, who ordered for their reinstatement in relaxation of Rules, as per letter, dated 19-12-1995 addressed to the Director Education, Hyderabad. Thereafter a letter, dated 7-11-1996 was issued to appellant requiring her to execute bond that after her appointment she will not request for transfer at least for five years. She was also required to produce certain documents as she was being considered for appointment as Primary School Teacher. She submitted such bond and other documents 'so also medical fitness certificate, dated 7-1-1996 and she was appointed afresh and posted at Government Girls Primary School, Arbi vide order, dated 7-1-1996. However, on the allegation that since appellant failed to resume her duties and opened the closed school at village Arbi, her appointment order was kept in abeyance as per letter, dated 29-1-1996 which was subsequently, withdrawn vide another letter, dated 23-4-1996 of Director Primary Education, Hyderabad Region but as it appears, appellant was not allowed to resume her duties while others were allowed and they resumed their duties. Again in letter, dated 4-9-1997 of the Directorate of Primary Education, Hyderabad, it was reiterated that appointment orders of all the five girls including that of appellant are valid but inspite of that appellant was not allowed to join her duties on the plea that there was ban on appointment imposed by the Government and such intimation was given by the District Officer Education (Female) Primary, Dadu to the Director, Primary Education, Hyderabad Region vide letter, dated 17-9-1997 and in reply thereof the D.E.0.(F) issued clear instructions to allow appellant to join her duties and matter may not be complicated but even then appellant was not allowed to resume her duties. She continued her efforts and lastly filed C.P. No,D-355 of 2003 before Honourable High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad, wherein comments were also called but ultimately as per order, dated 4-6-2004 the petition was disposed of as not pressed as appellant wanted to avail her remedy before this Tribunal. She again moved application to the Executive District Officer (Education), Dadu for issuance of her posting order, but as per letter dated 26-7-2005 of District Officer Education Elementary (M.F), Dadu, she was informed that her request being beyond the competency of the District Education Officer, cannot be acceded to. She has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through the instant appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of respondents and with their assistance also perused the case papers.
3. There is no denial to the fact that appellant like many others was appointed as Primary School Teachers under Prime Minister's Strength Scheme. Appointment order, dated 22-10-1994 was issued in favour of appellant and she was posted at Government Girls Primary School, Arbi, where she joined and performed her duties till May, 1995 for which period she was also paid salaries. However, suddenly appointment of appellant and other teachers was cancelled on the pretext that there was ban on fresh appointment. All the affectee teachers approached the then Chief Minister Sindh who by relaxing rules ordered their reinstatement. In pursuance of such directives/orders of the Chief Executive of Province, all the teachers were given fresh appointment orders and they are still performing their duties. Appellant was also given offer letter, dated 7-11-1996 requiring her to execute bond that she will not request for her transfer for at least five years, which she executed and also furnished all other requisite documents and as per order, dated 7-1-1996 she was posted at same school, but again her appointment order was kept in abeyance, without any justifiable reason. It appears that appellant was highly discriminated. Her colleague teachers were given fresh appointment orders, which have been implemented and all such teachers are still performing their duties. Contention of respondents that there was ban on appointment has no force. If there was any ban, the same was relaxed by the then Chief Minister, Sindh who ordered for fresh appointment/reinstatement of all such teachers. In any case, if there was ban, then how the other teachers who were selected, appointed and posted like appellant, were given fresh appointment orders. This in fact is pure discrimination.
4. Mr. Abdul Jalil Akhund, Executive District Officer (Education), Dadu, appeared before the Tribunal and stated that the other three lady teachers were appointed afresh after proper advertisement but appellant had not applied and further that appellant was a project employee. These two contentions of E.D.O. Are not borne out from the record made available before us. In the fresh appointment orders of the three lady teachers there is nothing mentioned that they were appointed after fresh advertisement. Besides, there is nothing on the record to indicate even remotely if the present appellant was project employee.
5. In view of the fact that appellant's case is identical to her colleague teachers, therefore, she is entitled to same relief, benefit and treatment. Accordingly the respondent No,3 is directed to issue posting order of appellant at any primary School forthwith. The appellant, however, shall not be entitled to past salary, but her seniority would be counted from the date of appointment of her colleague teachers. Appeal stands accepted in the above terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
6. Announced in open Court.