ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.--- Muhammad Zafar petitioner was appointed as Electrician in BPS-5 with usual allowances on regular basis against a vacant post vide order dated 1-3-1993 issued by Administrator, Market Committee, Ahmedpur East in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 70(2)(4) Schedule-B of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979. He has been serving on the said post for long 18 years when served with a Show-cause Notice No,1281 dated 20-1-2011 requiring him to deposit his original Diploma in the office. On submission of reply to the show-cause notice he was served with another Show-cause Notice No,284 dated 294-2011 indicating that he was required to produce the Diploma of Electrician issued by Board of Technical Education, Punjab but he has provided photocopy of a certificate issued by Dehi Mazdoor Training Centre, Allahabad, which fails to fulfill the requisite qualification for the post of Electrician as stipulated in Schedule-B of Rule 70(2)(4) Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979.
Through the above said notice he was provided last opportunity to produce the requisite diploma within seven days otherwise his services will be terminated. The said Show-cause Notice No,284.
Dated 29-4-2011 was called in question by the petitioner through Writ Petition No,2378 of 2011/BWP, which was disposed of vide order dated 9-5-2011 with a direction to the respondents that while deciding the petitioner's case his objections be considered by providing opportunity of hearing.
2. In sheer disregard to the above direction, Administrator Market Committee, Ahmedpur East vide order of the same date i.e, 9-5-2011 dismissed the petitioner from service in lieu of processing bogus Diploma instead of original copy of the Diploma issued from the Board of Technical Education Punjab. The petitioner has impugned the above order dated 9-5-2011 of his dismissal from service through this writ petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution through this writ petition on the ground that he had obtained the Diploma from Dehi Mazdoor Training and Credit Programme Punjab Small Industries Corporation as skilled worker in the trade of Electrician, therefore, his appointment was genuine and if any irregularity has been made by the Authority the petitioner cannot proceed on this ground; that he is not guilty of any misconduct during his service period; that impugned order of dismissal is illegal and without lawful authority and liable to set aside.
3. Respondents in their comments raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition in terms of bar under Article 212 of the Constitution as well as non-availing the alternate remedy i.e, departmental appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority i.e, respondent No,2.
4. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the parties, learned Assistant Advocate- General and also gone through the record.
5. At the outset as regards preliminary objection of the respondents about jurisdiction of the High Court suffice to say that it has already been settled in the case of Qazi Akhtar Ali, Secretary, Market Committee Bhalwal, District Sargodha v. Director of Agriculture (Economics and Marketing) Punjab and others 2000 PLC (C.S.) 784. In the above cited case it was held that employees of the Market Committee cannot be said to be employees of Provincial Government nor can they be said to be holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Province. As such, they were not civil servants and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal. With the above observation the writ was issued in favour of the petitioner Qazi Akhtar Ali. In the light of the above referred dictum, instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable.
6. Coming to the facts of the case, at the outset an extract of Serial No,13-A of Schedule B of Rule 70(2)(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979 is reproduced below for ready reference:--- {{TABLE}} Sr. Name of the Appointing Minimum qualifications for Method of No, Post with scale authority appointment by recruitment Initial Promotion recruitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 13-A Electrician Market Middle with one By initial- Committee year's recruitment certificate issued by Board of Technical Education, Punjab {{TABLE}} ' Respondent No,2 in parawise comments has categorically admitted that Administrator Market Committee Ahmedpur East/respondent No,1 is a competent authority for appointment of the petitioner under Rule 70(2)(4)B of PAPM(G) Rules, 1979.
7. It is, therefore, obvious that respondent No,1 being fully aware of the qualification clause for recruitment of the Electrician as mentioned above himself appointed the petitioner as Electrician about 18 years back vide appointment Letter No,550-52 dated 1-3-1993 on the basis of copy of Diploma produced by them duly issued by Dehi Mazdoor Training and Credit Programme Punjab Allahabad. Therefore, if any irregularity was committed he should have blamed himself instead of issuing impugned order of dismissal of services against the petitioner. Reliance be made upon Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Punjab and others v. Zulfiqar Ali (2006 SCMR 678).
8. Certainly it was incumbent upon the appointing Authority to apply his conscious mind while scrutinizing the petitioner's application and antecedents before issuing the appointment letter in his favour. Once petitioner produced certificate having been accepted as valid, proper and equivalent to that as required the same cannot be questioned after eighteen years of his service.
Even in the show-cause notice issued before passing the impugned order of dismissal, his qualification and experience as Electrician was neither termed as insufficient nor defective. The matter being a past and closed transaction cannot be reopened after eighteen years. The impugned action of the respondents is, therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. In view of the above facts and reasons the impugned dismissal order, dated 9-5-2011 is declared illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner. The same is, therefore, set aside. This writ petition is allowed accordingly.