' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---These petitions for leave to appeal, proceed against common judgment dated 17-6-2006 passed by the N.-W.F.P Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby Appeals Nos.490, 491 and 492 of 2005 filed by respondents Rozi Khan, Saeedullah and Muhammad Idrees, Arabic Teachers were accepted, order dated 30-7-2004 was restored and the impugned order dated 31-1-2005 of termination/withdrawal of respondents, was set aside.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been mentioned in detail in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo of petitions.
3. We have heard at length. Mr. Tasleem Hussain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioners- Department and Mr. Ijaz Anwar, Advocate representing the respondents. We have also perused the material on record as well as the impugned judgment minutely.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Department mainly contended that appointment of the respondents was withdrawn for valid reasons as "Sanads" of the respondents issued by the "Deni- Madrasa" were not found valid as the "Madrasa" has not been registered/recognized by the Higher Education Commission. He also added that the Institution/ Madrasa which issued the "Sanad" is not affiliated to Model Dini Madaris Board as required under the Federal Government promulgated Ordinance No,XL of 2001.
5. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently controverter the above contentions and argued that respondents were appointed as regular employees after completion of legal formalities and approval of the competent authority and that respondents assumed the charge and received three months salaries and as such petitioner-department had no justifiable reason to withdraw their order of appointment. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Ghulam Rasool and others v. Government of Balochistan and others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 47, Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another v. Gohar Riaz, 2004 SCMR 1662 and Abdul Salim v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Department of Education Secondary, N.-W.F.P. 2007 PLC (C.S.) 179.
6. Record reveals that respondents were initially appointed as "Qaris" (BS-7) vide order dated 29-4- 1999 after proper selection. Subsequently, as a result of advertisement appearing in the newspaper, the respondents applied for the post of Arabic Teacher (BS-9) and they were appointed as such vide order dated 30-7-2004. The respondents took the charge on 31-7-2004 and received the salary. Vide order dated 31-7-2005, the appointment order issued on 30-7-2004, was withdrawn. The respondents preferred departmental appeals which remained un-responded.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondents, approached the N.-W.F.P Service Tribunal, Peshawar, by way of filing appeals, which were accepted as stated and mentioned above.
7. The respondents were qualified and their appointments were made by the competent authority after observance of due process of law. No proper inquiry such as issuing of charge sheet/statement of Allegations, show-cause notice has been issued to the respondents. The impugned judgment is based on valid and sound reasons and is entirely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. Neither there is misreading or non-reading of material evidence, nor misconstruction of facts and law. Needless to emphasize that or any irregularity whatsoever, if committed by the department itself, the appointee cannot be harmed, damaged or condemned subsequently when it occurs to the department that it had itself committed some irregularities qua any appointment. This Court has held in Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Peshawar and 2 others v. Abdul Waheed and 7 others 2004 SCMR 303 that for the irregularities committed by the department itself qua appointment of a candidate, the appointees cannot be condemned subsequently. It was observed:--- "Obviously the appointments so made, were made by the Competent Authority and in case prescribed procedure was not followed by concerned authority, the appointees/respondents could be blamed for what was to be performed and done by the Competent Authority before having verified the qualification and suitability and observance of the due process before issuing the appointment orders."
8. Having considered the matter from all angles in the light of material on file, we find that learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has discussed all aspects of the matter in a proper manner and has assigned cogent and sound reasoning in the impugned judgment before arriving at the conclusion. Neither any misreading or non- reading of the evidence on record could be pointed out in the impugned judgment, justifying interference by this Court. Even otherwise no substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
9. Pursuant to above, finding no substance in these petitions, we dismiss the same and decline to grant leave.