' MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.--- With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, these matters are being decided as PAKKA CASES.
2. This single order shall deal with three matters i.e, Writ Petition No,1274 of 2004 "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others" Writ Petition No,1241 of 2004 "GHULAM MURTAZA and others v.
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others and Writ Petition No,1162 of 2004 "MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others", as all three have arisen out of one and the same order dated 13-3-2004 passed by District Coordination Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioners joined education department in the year 1995 as G.P.T (English Teachers) in BS-14 and were performing duties as such at respective places. Pursuant to a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 28-3-2013 passed in Civil Petitions Nos.127, 4178, 4179 and 4180-L of 2002, the Additional Secretary (Schools), Government of Punjab vide letter dated 14th of January, 2004 invited implementation report and other allied information from Executive District Officers (Education) for the purposes of considering the cases of English Teachers for promotion as SST BS-16. Ultimately, the Government of Punjab constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee for Dera Ghazi Khan District and the said Committed consisted of (i) District Coordination Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan (Chairman), (ii) EDO-Education, Dera Ghazi Khan (Appointing Authority), (iii) DEO-Dera Ghazi Khan (Member) and (iv) EDO (F&P), Dera Ghazi Khan (Member). Pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 29-1-2004, the petitioners along with others were promoted vide Notification No,1061/Admn-I dated 13-2-2004. The petitioners accordingly submitted their Joining Reports.
Subsequently, however, vide Office Order dated 13-3-2004 (DCO/HCG/I/4036-41), the District Coordination Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan declared the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 29-1-2004 as irregular ab initio, and as such cancelled the promotions notified through Order No,1061/Admn-I dated 13-2-2004, reverted the promotees to their original posts and place of postings. This order dated 13-3-2004 issued by the District Coordination Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan recalling the promotion order, has been assailed through the instant three writ petitions.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that entire process of promotion was conducted in a lawful manner, as proper Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted, after consideration of cases of the employees, promotion orders were issued. The learned counsel further argued that promotion orders issued pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee also stood implemented when the petitioners joined their places of postings in BS-16 as SSTs, as such, the promotion order could not be recalled. The learned counsel further argued that even otherwise, since the promotion order had taken effect, the respondent District Co-ordination Officer if was of the view that something wrong went with the DPC, he could have ordered an inquiry, the petitioners must have been joined and given opportunity of hearing and only then he could refer the, matter to the departmental authority.
Lastly, it has been contended by the learned counsel that after recommendations by a properly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee, the District Coordination Officer in his independent capacity as such, could not interfere in the service matters of the petitioners and the impugned exercise under section 28(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 is totally without jurisdiction. On the question of maintainability of these writ petitions, the learned counsel argued that in the facts and circumstances of this case the District Coordination Officer could not be said as "departmental authority", as such, the petitioners were left remediless, therefore, the instant writ petitions, according to the learned counsel were maintainable.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General on the other hand, has mainly attacked the maintainability of these writ petitions and argued that under section 28 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 the District Coordination Officer was authorized to take necessary steps to ensure smooth running of business of District Coordination Group of Offices and in his opinion glaring flaws were noted in the promotion process, therefore, through the impugned order, error committed by the Departmental Promotion Committee has been rectified. The petitioners, in case have any grievance, may avail remedy before the appropriate forum.
6. I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
7. Before touching the facts of the case, firstly I would take up the question about maintainability of these writ petitions. Undoubtedly, the District Coordination Officer being coordinating head of the District Administration has been vested with authority under section 28 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, but a careful perusal of said entire section, reflects that powers bestowed upon the District Coordination Officer under this section are bounded by certain limits.
The situation becomes clear with the explanation attached to this section, which reads as under:-- - "Explanation.---.For the purposes of this section, the expression coordinating head means the authority to call for review and assess the performance of the groups of offices, individually or collectively and give directions for taking actions or measures for improving efficiency, service delivery and achievement of goals assigned in the approved plans of the District Government."
' As shall be seen from the above reproduced explanation, the authority of the District Coordination Officer revolves around smooth running of functions of District Administration, effective management and achievement of goals which are assigned in the approved schemes of the District Government. Such, authority, therefore, cannot be stretched to allow the District Coordination Officer to single handedly enter into service matters of the government employees and pass such orders, directly connected with terms and conditions of their services. Section 1(3) of the Punjab Local Governments (Appeal) Rules, 2002 clearly mentions that the said rules would apply only to the appeals preferred against orders passed under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, and the rules or bye-laws framed there under except appeals relating to Service matters of employees working under the Local Governments. The underlined portion clarifies the position that Punjab Local Governments (Appeal) Rules, 2002 are not applicable in the cases covered by terms and conditions of civil servants. In the case DILAWAR HUSSAIN and another v.
DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, OKARA and 2 others (2004 CLC 324), when the DCO had allowed use of passage over a property belonging to the Provincial Government, without the sanction of the Competent Authority (Health Department), this Court held that exercise of jurisdiction by the DCO under section 28 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, was illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction, and it was observed that DCO could pass such an order only after prior approval by the Competent Authority. In this case, the District Coordination Officer also cannot be termed "departmental authority". In almost similar situation when the order had not been passed by the "departmental authority" this court in the case "Mian MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. THE AUDITOR- GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" (1995 PLC (C.S.) 1178), held, as under:--- "Jurisdiction of High Court in matters relating to civil service-- Extent---Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain Constitutional petition at the behest of civil servant was not ousted in respect of all matters---Ouster of jurisdiction was, however, limited only to those matters which could be taken up by Service Tribunal---Appeal would lie before Service Tribunal against order passed by Departmental Authority.---Only objection was raised by Authorities that civil servant was not entitled to emoluments for the period in question. ---High Court had, thus, jurisdiction in the matter and order of refund of emoluments reviewed by civil servant for specified period was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect."
' In this view of the matter, as observed above the District Coordination Officer cannot be termed as "departmental authority" and under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, appeal to Tribunal lies against an order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental A authority, therefore, the said remedy is also not available to the petitioners. Consequently, the preliminary objection, raised by the learned Law Officer, with regard to the maintainability of these writ petitions, is not legally tenable, as such, the writ petitions are held to be maintainable.
8. As discussed above, the respondent/District Coordination Technology Officer is not the departmental authority, he is not the appointing or appellate authority in the case of the present petitioner, as the same is covered by the terms and conditions of civil servant, nor he can be said to be the next higher departmental authority, in the hierarchy of the petitioners, therefore, he was not competent at all to pass the impugned order. Furthermore, the tenor of the impugned order passed by the District Coordination Officer shows that impugned action was taken by him on complaints by public representatives and not by any of the direct affected employee, if there was any. This fact alone is sufficient to infer that while passing the impugned order the District Coordination Officer was in fact compelled by extraneous considerations and thus succumbed to the outside influence, otherwise, if there was any affected employee, he could have challenged the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee before the departmental authority and then before the Services Tribunal. Consequently the impugned order No,1061/ Admn-I dated 13-3-2004 passed by District Coordination Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan, having been passed without lawful authority, is hereby set aside.