' AZHAR SALEEM BABAR (MEMBER).--- The appellant has assailed the order, dated 12-3-2007 through the instant appeal, whereby he has been removed from service. The appeal was filed on 14-3-2007 and it was admitted for regular hearing on 15-3-2007. It is worth mentioning at the very outset that no interim relief was granted to the appellant while recording the order of admission of appeal.
2. The facts formulating the background of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Junior Drawing Teacher in' High School Lowat on 4-2-2006 on recommendations of the appropriate Selection Committee. The appellant joined his service in pursuance of the recruitment order but later on the order of appointment of the appellant was cancelled on 3-3-2006. The appellant filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal and obtained a status quo order. However, during the pendency of that appeal, the order of cancellation of the appellants' appointment was withdrawn on 26-2-2007, entailing the dismissal of appeal as having become infructuous. The appellant has further expressed that he has been removed from service vide impugned order dated 12-3-2007 without any legal excuse. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that he was recruited as Junior Drawing Teacher on recommendations of the concerned Selection Committee, so the order of his ouster from job was not in accordance with the law. Furthermore, that the appellant was neither given a notice nor was he charge-sheeted before passing the order of removal from service. The appellant has also complained that he has not been given a chance of hearing before imparting such a punishment. The appellant is of the view that respondent No,6, Headmaster Boys High School Lowat was not the proper authority to remove the appellant from service, so the order impugned is bad in law.
3. The official respondents were summoned in accordance with the rules and objections to appeal were filed on behalf of the respondents on 27-3-2007. The official respondents have contended that after the ouster of the appellant from job one Kh. Ejaz Ahmed has been appointed as Junior Drawing Teacher in place of the appellant. Kh. Ejaz Ahmed was a necessary party to the appeal and the appeal is not maintainable without impleading him as a party. Furthermore that Kh. Ejaz Ahmed is a regular employee of the Education Department and if the order is suspended or rescinded Kh. Ejaz Ahmed would be ousted from job. The respondents are further of the view that appointing authority, by rules, for the post of Junior Drawing Teacher is Divisional Director Schools.
The order of appointment of the appellant was issued by the Director Education Schools Technical who was not competent to issue the same. When the Director Education Schools Technical was apprised of the mistake, she cancelled the order of appointment of the appellant on 3-3-2006. The appellant filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal and succeeded in obtaining a status quo order. The respondents are of the view that on account of having been removed from service, the appellant was not entitled to monthly salary. However, the appellant took benefit of the position of his father who is functioning as Headmaster in the same institution and wrongfully obtained monthly salary from the national exchequer. Divisional Director Schools, Muzaffarabad has further elaborated that the arguments in the previous appeal filed by Naseem Haider, appellant was heard and the judgment was reserved, when the appellant decided to withdraw his appeal because he knew that the Court may pass an adverse order against him keeping in view the facts of the case. It has been explained that the Divisional Director Schools, Muzaffarabad was competent to issue the order of termination of appellant's service and he accordingly issued the same. In pursuance of the orders issued by the Divisional Director Schools, the Headmaster has rightly removed the appellant from job.
4. The appellant did not pile a replication. The arguments in the instant case were heard on 8-4- 2009.
5. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and gone through the record annexed with the file as well. A perusal of the order of initial appointment of the appellant dated 4-2-2006 transpires that the appellant was recruited as Junior Drawing Teacher in BPS-9 on temporary basis. Although the preamble of the order indicates that it was issued on recommendations of the Selection Committee and with the consent of District Education Officer Secondary District Neelum, however, the operative part of the order reads as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} A bare reading of the order reveals that it was temporary in nature. It has impliedly been admitted by the appellant that Director Education Schools (Technical) was not competent to issue the order of appointment of the appellant as Junior Drawing Teacher. By not filing a replication, it has also been admitted that Divisional Director Schools is the appropriate authority to issue the order of appointment of the appellant as Junior Drawing Teacher in BPS-9. It has also not been rebutted by the appellant that the initial order of appointment of the appellant was made without the post having been duly advertised. In such a situation, when the Director Education Schools (Technical) was apprised of a mistake committed on her behalf, she rightly withdrew the order of appointment of the appellant. A departmental inquiry may be initiated against the Headmaster, Boys High School, Lowat if he has misused his powers to benefit his son by imparting monthly salary to the appellant. It is worth mentioning that the order of termination of appellant's service was issued by the Director Education Schools, Muzaffarabad Division on 7-3-2007, in pursuance of which the Headmaster Government Boys High School, Lowat issued the impugned order. The order does not suffer from any legal flaw.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs.