' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)-The appellant, Assistant in the office of the District Education Officer, Bahawalpur, has been retired under section 13(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, vide order issued on 13th January, 1980 by the Deputy Director (S & C) in the Divisional Directorate of Education, Bahawalpur. He impugns this order on the ground that it was passed by an authority not competent to do so in his case.
2. The parties were heard at length. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that under the Delegation of Power Rules in respect of Education Department notified in March, 1974, the appointing and retiring authority in respect of ministerial establishment in district offices was the District Education Officer and only this officer was competent to retire the appellant. This argument was vehemently contested by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent Department. It was submitted that the issue was not so simple. The appellant, at the time of his retirement, was posted as Assistant in the office of the D. E.
0. But be was a member of the ministerial staff borne on the divisional cadre. By his posting/transfer to the D. E.
0.'s office his cadre was not changed, nor was his appointing authority changed. Under the rules he was liable to serve any where in Pakistan. Moreover, there was no longer any district cadre in the Education Department ever since its reorganization, and under the Education Department Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules. 1963, as provided by rule 4, the appointing authority was the Deputy Director in charge of administration. However, the learned counsel for the appellant controverted this argument by submitting that the Delegation of Power Rules were notified in 1974 and must have been framed with the Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules in view. It was clearly stated in the D. C. P. Rules that the D. E.
0. Was the authority to appoint and retire all ministerial staff working in District Offices and subordinate institutions.
3. After hearing the parties we came to the conclusion that the point at issue for determining the competent authority in this case was whether an Assistant working in the D. E.
0.'s office was amenable to the jurisdiction of the D. E..0. Or of the Deputy Director in charge of administration in the Divisional Directorate of Education. The contention of the respondent department was that the appellant was not borne on the district cadre and had only been transferred to the D. E. O's. Office by the Deputy Director as an administrative arrangement and despite his posting in a district office be continued to be part of the divisional cadre and thus within the jur4diction of the Deputy Director.
4. In addition to the documents and copies of rules filed by the parties, i,e, the Education Department Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, and the Education Department Delegation of Power Rules, 1974, or attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents to the Government notification of 29th July, 1975 which is an amendment to the Ministeral and Subordinate Service Rules, 1963. This is said to have been issued as a result of the reorganization of the Education Department and the consequent change from regional cadre to divisional cadre. The amendment, a part from providing that for the words "region" and "regional" the words "division" and "divisional" had been substituted, lays down that except for the posts of Assistant director (Estt.) and Registrar, Departmental Examination, all other ministerial and subordinate posts in the Department will be borne on the divisional cadre. Apparently, therefore, there is no such thing as a district cadre and the posts in the office of the D. E.
0. Are also on the divisional cadre, the Deputy Director (Administration) being the appointing and retiring authority for these. This is explicit enough, but what is not explicit is the entry in the D.
0. P. Rules which names the D. E.
0. As the appointing and retiring authority for ministerial staff in the office of the D. E. O. The obvious explanation is that the Education Department have failed to amend the D.
0. P. Rules when, as a result of re-organization they amended the Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules in July, 1975. This is a lacuna which the Department would do well to rectify at the earliest.
5, There is considerable weight in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the D.
0. P. Rules were presumably framed in the light of the Service Rules and thus, whatever their contents, they cannot be ignored. However, there is also another view to the matter, and that is that the D. 0, P. Rules are subsidiary to the Service Rules and their purpose is to facilitate implementation of the latter. Moreover, the amendment of July, 1975 in the Service Rules is too important to be ignored. True, the D.
0. P. Rules do not reflect that amendment, but where there is question of reliance on either of the two, the Service Rulesi will prevail.
6. In view of the above we hold that the post of Assistant in the office of the D. E.
0., occupied by the appellant before his retirement, was borne on the divisional cadre and that the Deputy Director (Administra tion) in the office of the Director of Education was the competent authority in respect of that post. The upshot is that the appellant was retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by the competent authority and that there is no strength in his plea that the retiring authority was incompetent.
7. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.