' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- Through this single judgment, we propose to 'dispose of the following matters as common question of law is involved therein:--
(1) W.P.No,473 of 2009 Muhammad Bilal and 264 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others (2) W.P.No,472 of 2009 Rehana Afzal and 66 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P.
Through Secretary and others, (3) W.P.No,341 of 2009 Muhammad Imran Khan v. Government of N.- W.F.P. Through Secretary and others, (4) W.P.No,491 of 2009 Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Government of N.- W.F.P. Through Secretary and others, (5) W.P.No,492 of 2009 Fazalul Hadi Shah v. Government of N.- W.F.P. Through Secretary and others, (6) W.P.No,527 of 2009 Muhammad Ibrahim v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others, (7) W.P.No,534 of 2009 Mst. Shahida Parveen v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others and (8) C.M.No,21 of 2010 Mst. Naveen Akhtar v.
Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others.
2. In all the above petitions, the allegations are that the petitioners were appointed by the respondents against certain posts of C.T. PST, DM, PET, IT etc. After conducting test and interview.
The petitioners, in pursuance of their appointment orders, took the charge of their posts and performed their duties satisfactorily to the best of their abilities. After the general elections held in February, 2008, certain questions were raised by the legislators with regard to irregularities in the appointments of the petitioners and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee concerned for examination. After deliberations, the said Standing Committee submitted its recommendations, in Para-21 of the report. It was recommended that the appointments made illegally between the period commencing from 1-1-2007 to June 2009 be cancelled and the officials instrumental in it be punished. When the report was adopted by the Provincial Assembly on 12-1- 2009, the matter was sent to Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Education Department for necessary action. The respondents concerned, instead of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and giving notices to them, proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioners appointed during the period mentioned in the recommendations of the Standing Committee and a direction was issued to respondents for en block termination of more than 1600 persons. The petitioners' stand is that the action of the respondents in the shape of termination of their services is violative of law and principles of natural justice, therefore, they have challenged the same in this Court through the above writ petitions.
3. Today, preliminary arguments were heard and record on file perused, in the light of which, our discussion is as under:--
4. At the outset, Mr. Sanaullah Shamim Gandapur, learned Deputy Advocate-General objected to the maintainability of these writ petitions by submitting that all these petitioners are civil servants and as such the jurisdiction is with the Services Tribunal and they cannot approach this Court through writ petitions as alternate remedy is available to them.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have challenged the orders of the respondents as illegal and void, therefore, the jurisdiction is vested in this Court. It was further argued that under section 4 of the Services Tribunals Act, no final order has been passed by any departmental authority, therefore, the matter cannot be adjudicated upon the Services Tribunal.
6 The moot question in this case is whether this Court has got the jurisdiction This is an admitted fact that all the petitioners were allegedly appointed by the respondents concerned to different posts. They also served for some period. When the matter of their appointments was challenged in the Provincial Assembly and after deliberations the Standing Committee No,26 on Elementary and Secondary Education Department, declared these appointments illegal and instructions were issued by it to terminate the services of all the appointees recruited between the period from 1-1- 2007 to 30-6-2008. There is no denial of the fact of appointments, therefore, in our opinion, all the petitioners are civil servants.
7. For the sake of convenience, Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is reproduced below:-- "212. Administrative Courts and Tribunals.--- (1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the appropriate Legislature may by Act provide for the establishment of one or more Administrative Courts or Tribunals to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of:--
(a) matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan, including disciplinary matters; (b)
(2) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, where any Administrative Court or Tribunal is established under clause (1), no other Court shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceeding in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of such Administrative Court or Tribunals extends and all proceedings in respect of any such matter which may be pending before such other Court immediately before the establishment of the Administrative Court or Tribunal other than an appeal pending before the Supreme Court shall abate on such establishment."
The above Article of the Constitution places a bar of jurisdiction on all Courts including the High Court regarding the matter of civil servants in respect of their terms and conditions. Article 212 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of all Courts including a High Court and orders of departmental authority even though without jurisdiction or mala fide can be challenged before Services Tribunal and jurisdiction of civil Court is specifically ousted. We may rely upon Muhammad Nasir Ahmad v. Almas Ali PLD 1981 Pesh. 1 and PLD 1981 Kar.
290. No proceedings over which an administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction extends, can be entertained by any other Court on the ground that the matter involves the determination of the vires of any rule or statute. Where subject matter of the dispute relates to terms and conditions of service, it falls within the jurisdiction of Services Tribunal as the above Article excludes the jurisdiction of other Courts and forums including High Court. In this connection, we may rely upon Federation of Pakistan v. Raees Khan 1993 SCMR 601. Service matters being a necessary part of exigencies of service are not justiceable, stricto senso, in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Such matters fall within the purview of Article 212 of the Constitution whereunder Services Tribunal has been established. On the other hand, the bar of jurisdiction in service matters is not inherent because certain matters which have expressly excluded from the purview of Service Tribunal i.e, matters of suspension of civil servants, or his fitness for promotion and in these matters, the High Court is empowered to determine the question.
8. In the case in hand, the order challenged by the petitioner is of termination passed by Executive District Officer (Schools and Literacy) and not by the Provincial Assembly. The issue brought by the petitioners before the Court exclusively relates to terms and conditions of service which falls under the domain of Services Tribunal. The order is available on file which was issued on 4-9-2009 vide which the services of the appointees including the petitioners were terminated. In our opinion, the issue in question relates to terms and conditions of service which is to be adjudicated upon by the Services Tribunal concerned. We may also rely upon PLD 2000 SC 50 wherein it is held that, "(2) Learned counsel has argued that the appointment of the respondent was bad in law, inasmuch as, it was not made by the competent Authority.
(3) There is no substance in the argument, inasmuch as, the respondent succeeded in the written test and the interview for the requisite job. He was, accordingly, appointed as Arabic Teacher. He had been performing his official duties. The Tribunal in its well-reasoned decision observed:-- "From the above discussion it appears that neither the appellant was associated with any such inquiry, nor he was a party to the writ petition in the High Court wherein a decision for scrutiny of the appointment made by Mr. Goraya was made nor there was any allegations of his credentials being forged or bogus. As such, there is nothing on record justifying the restraint order passed against the appellant. Even otherwise, the verbal order is no order in the eyes of law. Reference in this connection made be made PLD 1979 Lah. 699 and PLD 1998 Kar. 180,"
' In this view of the matter, the appeal is hereby accepted. The appellant shall be deemed to be in service right from the date of his appointment and he shall be entitled to all back benefits."
' The above case law reveals that appointment of a teacher who performed his duties for some time was challenged in the Tribunal and the order passed in that case by the Services Tribunal was upheld. The said case is identical to the case in hand.
9. In view of the above discussion, we have reached to the conclusion that the matter in issue is to be adjudicated upon by the Khyber Pakhtunkhaw Services Tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is barred. So, we return these petitions to the petitioners for presentation to the proper forum if they so desire. C.M.Nos.242 of 2009, 270 of 2009, 24 of 2010 and 52 of 2010 have become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.