SYED ZUFIQAR ALI BOKHARI, J.--- Through this petition the petitioner has challenged Notification No, SO (S-VI) 6-62/2008 dated 25-9-2008 issued by the Secretary (Schools) Respondent No 1 through which respondent No, 4 was posted Nawan Shaher, Multan vice Mst. Farzana Mamin Senior Subject Specialist who was going to retire from government service on 22-10-2008.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above- said seat was for subject specialist in Urdu. The petitioner applied for this seat through application dated 21-10-2008. Her previous application dated 15-10-2008 was also pending before Secretary Education. The petitioner was only candidate qualified to be posted at above-said seat being Subject Specialist in Urdu but Respondent No, 4 was posted although she was not eligible for that post being Subject Specialist in Arabic. Through this way the respondents have exceeded their authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned notification was issued in violation of earlier notification of Government of the Punjab Education Department dated 19-5-2006 which is as under:--- "It has been observed with deep concern that some of the District Authorities are making postings/transfers without keeping in view the status of the post as identified by the Government of the Punjab Education Department vide Notification No, SE 25-5-2002 dated 10-1-2004, causing problems in adjusting the teachers/officers on their promotions from RS-17 to RS-20. Similarly the Subject Specialists are being posted as Headmasters/Headmistresses/Deputy DEOs and Vice- versa without fulfilling the condition of serving for 10 years as such as prescribed in the recruitment rules and transfer policy 2000 or the Subject Specialists are being posted/adjusted against the posts not matching with their subjects. The context of recruitment rules 1989 is reproduced below:- -- "Subject Specialists shall not be eligible for posting as Headmasters/Headmistresses/Deputy District Education Officers unless they have served as Subject Specialists for a period of ten years. Similarly Headmasters/Headmistress."
The word "shall" used in the above quoted rule denotes that it is mandatory to follow without its and buts".
3. Report and parawise comments were called from the respondents. It is submitted that no application from the petitioner was received by them. It is however conceded that respondent No, 4 was not eligible for the seat allocated for Subject Specialist in Urdu but she was accommodated due to non-availability of suitable candidate. The objection of jurisdiction was also raised that petitioner being civil servant cannot this constitutional petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. This is writ of quo warranto through which the petitioner has challenged the posting of respondent No, 4 on the ground that she is not eligible for the same. The petitioner being interested party can file this writ petition. The bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not come in the way of writ of quo warranto. Respondent No,1 has conceded this fact in Paragraph No, 5 of parawise comments that respondent No, 4 was not eligible however she was posted against the vacant seat on 25-9-2008 because at that time no other candidate was available for posting against said vacancy.
6. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. The notification dated 25-9- 2008 issued by respondent No,1 is hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for posting against the above said post in accordance with law.