' In this case the appellant is aggrieved by the or 1979 passed by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, denationalizing the services of the appellant.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Senior Clerk in the Sarwar Model Girls Middle was nationalized under Martial Law Regulation 118 was the appellant claims that he was appointed by the of the aforesaid School on 22nd March, 1966 as Elea 220-20-600 p.m. And was also authorized to manager of the aforesaid School. He has place dated 22nd March, 1966, purporting to have beet President of the Managing Body of the aforesaid such appellant. The appellant further claims to have hand appointment letter to the District Inspector of Scat department, however, denied the existence of any such letter. Rather pointed out that the appellant all through had been functioning as Manager. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the list of staff filed by the management of the School which was duly signed by the appellant as Manager and his name did not figure in the list in question. It is claimed that at no stage the appellant had shown himself to be the employee of the School although all the statements and correspondence with the Education Department, on behalf of the schools, was done by the appellant himself. Thus the appellant's ever having succeeded in getting his services nationalised and it was in February/March, 1975, during the pay Fixation work when it was noticed that the appellant was shown to be the Head Clerk of the School and his salary was shown at Rs. 340 p.m. In the statement supplied by the Liaison Officer. However, on verification of the list of the staff as filed on 30th September, 1972 there were many complaints of forgery said to have been committed by the appellant. Consequently, a Committee was formed to look into all aspects of the case. The Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director, Education, Lahore Division, was formed to probe into all aspects of the case. The appellant failed to appear before the Committee despite notice. The Committee recommended that the appellant was not the employee of the School on the crucial date of the nationalization and his services were accordingly denationalised.
3. The appellant apart from the appointment letter dated 22nd March, 11966 referred to above, also relied upon the letter dated 18th December, 1972 issued by the Deputy Director of Schools, Lahore, sanctioning the salary of the staff for 8 months which amounted to Rs. 11,920. He requested us to refer to Annexure 'E' to the grounds of the appeal in which the monthly salary of the entire staff of Sarwar Model Girls Middle School, Lahore, including the appellant was shown to be Rs. 1,490. He submitted that his name appeared at Sr. No. 1 in non-teaching staff list. The department, however, submitted that it is nowhere in dispute that he got his name included in the list of non-teaching staff of the aforesaid School after the nationalization date. But there was ample evidence available on the record of the department that he was merely Manager and not a Clerk. It was also pointed out by the department that the original appointment letter said to have been given by the appellant to the District Inspector of Schools, Lahore, is nowhere on the record and is not traceable nor the appellant is in possession of the same. Thus his services have been rightly denationalized.
4. After hearing both the parties, we are fully satisfied that the appellant has failed to make out any case to establish that he was member of the staff before the date of nationalization of the Sarwar Model Girls Middle School, Lahore. He has no evidence to establish his claim that before the crucial date of nationalization, he was the member of the staff of the aforesaid School. On the contrary, the department has produced a number of documents signed by the appellant himself in the capacity of Manager and even the list of staff of the School was supplied by him and his name did not appear in the same.
5. In the circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the order passed by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Education Department, is unexceptionable and calls for no interference. Thus the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.