' SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, J.--- This common order shall dispose of Writ Petition No,3475 of 2009 filed by Shazana Kousar, petitioner (herein referred as ('petitioner') and Writ Petition No,27 of 2010 filed by Asia Khatoon, petitioner (herein referred as 'respondent') as in both these writ petition common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. Shazana Kousar daughter of Muhammad Ayub, petitioner and Asia Khatoon, respondent both applied for the appointment as Educator in response to advertisement published in the Daily 'Nawa-i-Waqt' Rawalpindi/Islamabad in its edition' on 6-10-2008 for one vacancy of SSE (English) available in Government Girls High School, Kotli Sattian. Both the ladies appeared in the interview/test, etc. And vide Letter of Agreement No,7044 dated 7-11-2009 Asia Khatoon, respondent was appointed as such. Shazana Kausar, petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment letter of Asia Khatoon moved an application before the District Coordination Officer/Chairman, District Recruitment Committee, Rawalpindi agitating therein that she was actually stood first on merit but with mala fides the respondent Asia Khatoon was shown on merits at No,1; that subsequently the District Recruitment Committee on this application conducted an inquiry and passed revised/correction order dated 17-12-2009 of the Educators/SSE (English) whereby a revised merit list was issued according to which petitioner Shazana Kousar was found securing 60.94 marks having been declared stood first while respondent Asia Khatoon while securing 59.97 marks was placed at No,2 in the merit list; that vide Order No,9210/A-H, dated 24-12-2009 issued by the Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi whereby the employment of SSE(English) in respect of respondent Asia Khatoon was cancelled.
3. Both petitioner and the respondent filed separate writ petitions. Shazana Kousar, petitioner sought her appointment as SSE (English) as she stood first on the merit list whereas Asia Khatoon, respondent challenged the order dated 24-12-2009 for cancelation of her appointment as SSE(English) as she earlier was appointed as such.
4. The Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi in his para-wise comments in Writ Petition No,3475 of 2009 it was submitted as under:-- "The Government of the Punjab has approved recruitment against vacancies of teaching staff in the Government schools of the Province in the year 2008-09. The District wise vacancies breakup was advertised in the newspaper 'The Daily, Nawa-eWaqt' dated 6-10-2008.
' Mst. Shazana Kousar applied for the post of SSE(Eng) at Government Girls High School Kotli Sattian.
There was only one post of SSE(Eng) and three candidates. In the first phase of appointment Mst.Asia Khatoon was appointed in the said school. Later on, the petitioner's complaint that Asia Khatoon has been appointed due to wrong percentage and weightage against GPA. Therefore, the case was put up before the Recruitment Committee to reconsider and recalculate GPA versus percentage as per university criteria and cancelled the order of Asia Khatoon as per merit.
' Hence, after reconsideration/recalculation of merit the petitioner obtained 60.94 marks and stood top on the merit list while Mst. Asia Khatoon secured 59.97 and stood 2nd in the merit list. (copy of merit list annexed).
' Then consequent upon the approval by the District Recruitment Committee, District Rawalpindi, the appointment order No,7044/1I dated 7-11-2009 in respect of Mst.Asia Khatoon D/o Mukhtar Ahmad was cancelled being devoid of merit. Dated 24-12-2009 (Copy annexed).
' In the light .Of facts and merit, appointment order has been issued in respectof Mst.Shazana Kousar (petitioner). (Copy enclosed).
' Hence, grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. Therefore, instant petition is liable to be dismissed."
5. Similarly, the Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No,27 of 2010 while submitting his parawise comments mentioned as under:--- "The Government of the Punjab has approved recruitment against vacancies of teaching staff in the Government, schools of the Province in the year 2008-09. The District wise vacancies breakup was advertised in the newspaper 'The Daily, Nawa-eWaqt' dated 6-10-2008.
' Mst. Asia Khatoon applied for the post of SSE(Eng) at Government Girls High School Kotli Sattian.
There was only one post of SSE(Eng). In the first phase of appointment Mst.Asia Khatoon was appointed in the said school. Later on, respondent No,6 lodged complaint that Asia Khatoon has been appointed due to wrong percentage and weightage against GPA. Therefore, the case was put up before the Recruitment Committee to reconsider and recalculate GPA versus percentage as per university criteria and cancelled the order of Asia Khatoon as per merit.
' Hence, after reconsideration/recalculation of merit the petitioner obtained 60.94 marks and stood top on the merit list while Mst.Asia Khatoon secured 59.97 and stood 2nd in the merit list. (copy of merit list annexed).
' In the light of merit, appointment order has been issued in respect of Mst. Shazana Kousar as she stands top in the merit list.
' Due to re-calculation of merit, the employment Order No,7044/11 dated 7-11-2009 issued in respect of Mst. Asia Khatoon SSE (Eng) has been withdrawn being devoid of merit.
' In the light of facts, cancellation of petitioner's appointment order was under rules/policy.
Therefore, instant petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shazana Kausar argued that as she stood first according to the revised merit list and there was only one vacancy available in the concerned school, therefore, she is entitled to be appointed as such. The learned Additional Advocate-General as well as the E.D.O.(Education), Rawalpindi present in Court does not oppose this petition in view of the parawise comments submitted.
7. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent Asia Khatoon has argued that as according to the first merit list respondent was shown stood first on merit list and she was issued appointment letter on 7-11-2009 and she also joined her service, therefore, subsequent enquiry/preparation of the revised merit list is mala fide on the part of the respondent department; that once respondent has been appointed her appointment cannot be cancelled without adopting due process of law.
Learned counsel argued that no notice whatsoever was issued to respondent Asia Khatoon. Even otherwise the contention raised by the respondent officials is without any lawful justification.
8. Learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the District Recruitment Committee consisted upon District Coordination Officer being Chairman, Executive District Officer (F&P), District Executive Officer (M-EE) and District Executive Officer (W-EE), Rawalpindi being Members, however, opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent Asia Khatoon on the ground that as initially there was some confusion about calculation of marks in view of GPA of the concerned university respondent Asia Khatoon was wrongly taken as stood first in the merit list.
However, subsequently after enquiry the correction was made and her appointment in favour of respondent - Asia Khatoon was withdrawn vide order dated 24-12-2009; that even otherwise respondent Asia Khatoon was afforded an opportunity of hearing before issuing the impugned order. Prayed that writ petition filed by respondent Asia Khatoon be dismissed.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions and perused the record.
10. Admittedly respondent Asia Khatoon appointed as SSE(English) in Government Girls High School, Kotli Sattian vide Letter of Agreement. No,7044 dated 7-11-2009 and she joined her duty. The subsequent cancellation order of her appointment was issued on 24-12-2009 which reads as under:- "Consequent upon the approval by the District Recruitment Committee, District Rawalpindi, the Employment Order issued vide this office No,7044/II, dated 7-11-2009 in respect of Mst.Aasia Khatoon D/o Mukhtar Ahmed as SSE(English) GGHS Kotli Sattian is hereby cancelled being devoid of merit."
11. This order itself shows that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent Asia Khatoon prior to the cancellation of her earlier appointment letter. If the appointment letter of respondent Asia Khatoon dated 7-11-2009 is seen according to para-8 the conditions of termination of contract are provided which is hereby reproduced for facility of reference:---
(i) Contract of appointment shall be liable to termination on One Month's Notice or Payment of One Month's Salary in lieu thereof by either side without assigning any reason.
(ii) Department of Education has the right to terminate your contract at any time after giving a notice/personal hearing in case of your poor performance or conduct."
12. No doubt the appointment of a candidate under this contract can be terminated but one month's prior notice is liable to be issued or at least one moth pay in lieu thereof is to be provided to an employee under this contract. The second condition is that any such contract only can be terminated at least providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the employee subject to issuance of notice in case of poor performance or conduct. In the present case second condition is not applicable as respondent Asia Khatoon was not terminated on the basis of her poor performance. She according to the respondent department was found liable to be terminated as earlier Selection Committee did not calculate the merit/marks of the candidates on the basis of the qualification of petitioner Shazana Kousar as well as respondent Asia Khatoon. If the comments submitted by the Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi are seen in both the writ petitions they have taken the plea that earlier due to wrong percentage and weightage against GPA of the petitioner Shazana Kousar, she was not placed on the merit list at No,1 but subsequently when calculations were made according to the correct procedure then she stood first while respondent Asia Khatoon was placed at No,2.
13. Admittedly the District Recruitment Committee was consisted upon DCO, Rawalpindi being Chairman, DEO(F&P), DEO(M-EE) and DEO(W-EE) being Members but this Committee earlier did not weigh the merit list according to the proper procedure and put respondent Asia Khatoon at No,1 in the merit list and her appointment letter was issued as mentioned above. According to the officials of respondent department present in Court subsequently when the petitioner Shazana Kousar moved an application it was further calculated and she was placed at No,1 of the merit list thus the appointment of respondent Asia Khatoon was cancelled. Respondent Asia Khatoon due to none of her fault although was appointed and subsequently removed had undergone the agony and mental stress as she had to approach this Court to get redressal of her grievance. Unfortunately there was only one seat available in the school concerned, therefore, one who stood first only can get the chance of appointment and as the petitioner Shazana Kousar according to the calculation stood first in the merit list she is entitled to be appointed as such. Accordingly, Writ Petition No,3475 of 2009 filed by Shazana Kousar is allowed.
14. The appointment of respondent Asia Khatoon in the circumstances is not justified, therefore, her cancellation of appointment I letter vide order dated 24-12-2009 is correct. Resultantly, the Writ Petition No,27 of 2010 is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
15. All this trouble happened due to carelessness as well as casual attitude adopted by the District Selection Recruitment Committee, Rawalpindi. It is now high time to check this casual attitude of Government officials/public functionaries while performing their duties. Had the Selection Committee taken due care and caution while preparation of the merit list at the earliest then this trouble might have not occurred which not only caused mental tension and agony for respondent Asia Khatoon as well as for petitioner Shazana Kousar who suffered a lot only due to lack of due care and caution and application of mind by the officials of the respondent department, therefore, she not only is entitled one month's pay which is required to be paid to her J according to the conditions contained it para-8 of the Letter of Agreement dated 7-11-2009 rather she is also entitled for payment of cost of Rs,50,000 which shall be paid to her by the members of the District Recruitment Committee, Rawalpindi jointly and severely.