' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- Petitioner filed this petition, feeling aggrieved from office order No,DE- 2(2)/2006(Admin) dated 18-12-2009, whereby, respondents Nos.2 to 4 appointed respondent No,5 as teacher in the Girls High School Yarkote Khomer.
2. The background of the circumstances in which petitioner had to file this petition are that respondents Nos.2 to 4 advertised posts of MT female teachers of BPS-07 in their department and sought applications from suitable candidates. Petitioner also applied and appeared among many other candidates for one of the said posts. Petitioner passed the said test and secured 16th position in the merit list while respondent No,5 secured 17th position. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 appointed candidates, who secured positions 1 to 14 out of the said merit list, against the then vacant 14 posts.
Through impugned order, respondents Nos.2 to 4 appointed respondent No,5, although she secured the 17th position in the merit list while petitioner secured 16th position. Petitioner moved the authorities of respondents Nos.2 to 4 for redressal of her grievance but in vain. The appointment of respondent No,5 is open violation of the merit list and is clear discrimination with the petitioner.
3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. In the case in hand, parawise comments of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 are very important, wherein, respondents Nos.2 to 4 have admitted contents of paras Nos.1 to 4 of the petition. Through her separate parawise comments, respondent No,5 also has admitted contents of paras Nos.1 to 4 of the petition. So; the fact that petitioner secured 16th position in the subject test/interview, is admitted. Petitioner has filed photo copy of the merit list which also shows the same position of both petitioner and respondent No,5. While replying para No,5 of the petition, respondents Nos.2 to 4 did not deny the position of respondent No,5 in the said test/interview and rather gave different averments, evasively to the extent of position of respondent No,5, therefore, her position as alleged in the petition is correct.
4. Once the positions of petitioner and respondent No,5, in the merit list of subject test/interview is admitted, the question for determination for this Court is the plea of respondents, raised in para No,5 of parawise comments. As the respondents Nos.2 to 4 have taken a very specific, and special plea in para No,5 of parawise comments, therefore, the same plea is worth discussion in the light of material available on file. For ready reference, we reproduce the pleas of respondents Nos.2 to .4 and respondent No,5 from para No,5 of parawise comments, which are different as is evident from the contents of parawise comments on para No,5 of the petition. In para No,5 of parawise comments, respondents Nos.2 to 4 have very specifically averred that:-
5. "That para-5 is baseless, unfounded, incorrect and against the facts and law. The fact of the matter is that the posts against which the petitioner had applied and appeared in test/interview were filled-in by appointing candidates 011 merit in October, 2007. ii) The leave vacancy post against which the defendant No,5 was appointed on temporary basis has fallen vacant in 2009. The vacancy did not exist yet another test was held for recruitment (Copy of the advertisement of another recruitment published in 2009 along with the selected candidates and merit list are attached herewith for kind perusal of this Honourable Court). iv) As per rules the claim of the petitioner is clear-cut time barred, since the appointment of petitioner was made on 18-12-2009 while petition has been filed on 17-11-2011 after lapse of about 2 years, which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed."
' In para No,5 of the parawise comments, respondent No,5 'has averred that:
5. "That the para-5 of the writ petition wrong, baseless and unfounded with submission that the appointment of the respondent No,5 was not made on the basis of merit list prepared in year 2007 or within validity period of six months but against leave vacancy due to posting on deputation of Mrs. Shah Bano MT at Girls High School No,1 Gilgit, it is further submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous to the extent of respondent No,5 as the appointment order of respondent No,5 dated 18th Dec, 2009 was issued only for a contractual period of six months i,e, 18-12-20.09 to 17th June, 2010, the contractual period of six months has already been completed and the appointment order dated 18-12-2009 is not in field."
' In the above referred pleas, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 as well as respondent No,5 has very evasively denied that appointment of respondent No,5 was on the basis of subject test/interview.
Said respondents have very simply averred that the averments of para No,5 of the petition are incorrect. Said respondents are silent about even appointment of respondent No,5 on regular basis. What inference we can rightly derive from the above reproduced averments is that, on the one hand said respondents have termed the contents of the petition as incorrect but are silent that why appointment of respondent No,5 is correct? Respondents Nos.2 to 4 have referred another test/ interview but are evasively silent that whether respondent No,5 qualified such another test and interview. Parties admitted at bar that neither petitioner nor respondent No,5 appeared in such test and interview. In our opinion, respondents Nos.2 to 4 have attempted to play with the system as well as with the court. Joint perusal of above reproduced paras of parawise comments shows that respondents Nos.2 to 4 appointed respondent A No,5 against a leave vacancy post soon after the subject test, instead of appointing petitioner who had admittedly secured a better position as compared to respondent No,5. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 very malafidely regularized or adjusted services of respondent No,5 against a regular post through their order (reproduced infra in para No,5).
5. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 did not deny the Office Order .No,DE-2(2)/2006(Admin) dated 7th April, 2010. For ready reference, we reproduce the said office order. On our direction, the persons representing respondents Nos.2 to 4, who appeared in the Court, verified the said order as correct after going through their own record. The said Office Order is as under:- No,DE-2(2)/2006(Admin) GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION.
GILGIT REGION Gilgit the 7th April 2010 OFFICE ORDER.
' With reference to this Directorate office order of even No, dated 18-12-2009, the contract appointment in respect of Mrs. Mehnaz Akhtar lady teacher F.G. Girls High School No,1 Gilgit is hereby regularized against the vacant post of MT teacher (BS-9) at F.G. Girls High School Yarkote Khomar with effect from 1st April 2010.
' However, her seniority will be reckoned with effect from 03-11-2007 i,e, with her original batch Sd/xxx Director Education (Academics)
' In the last and second paragraph of above office order, respondents Nos.2 to 4 have clearly appointed respondent No,5 w,e,f, 03-11-2007 and have used the word her original batch which shows the appointment of respondent No,5 in the light of subject test and interview. Thus it is established beyond doubt that respondents Nos.2 to 4 have not only violated merit but have displayed discrimination also.
6. We, therefore, accept this petition throughout and direct the respondents Nos.2 to 4 for passing similar order as they have passed in the name of respondent No,5. Before parting with, we hold that petitioner is senior to respondent No,5 and will remains so. Moreover, if any financial loss is caused to the State Treasury because of the order of reckoning of services of respondent No,5 and petitioner from 03-11-2007 to 01-04-2010, the persons responsible for so doing be located and the State Treasury be compensated from receiving the said amounts from salary or pension or commutation etc. Of said persons. Throughout. File be consigned to record.