1. ' The petitioner, who is working as EST at Govt. Girls Primary School Chak No. 138/WB, has challenged the promotion of Respondent No. 7, on the ground, that the Respondent No. 7 on the basis of a fake B.Ed. Degree, managed to promote herself as SST.
2. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that in an inquiry conducted by the District Monitoring Officer, Vehari, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, it has been proved, that the Respondent No. 7 used a fake B.Ed, degree but no action till today, has been taken and lastly prayed, that the promotion of Respondent No. 7 may be declared illegal.
3. 3.Mr. Shoukat A.I Tahir, EDO (Education), Vehari, present in the Court and submitted, that after verification, it has been proved, that the Respondent No. 7 used fake B.Ed degree at the time of her promotion.
4. 4.The aforesaid statement made by the EDO (Education), Vehari, was controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 7 and submitted, that the Respondent No. 7 did not use the fake decree as in fact it was submitted by the petitioner and further submitted, that even otherwise as per the Recruitment Rules, the requisite qualification to promote as SST is B.Sc., B.Ed/M.Ed, or M.A in Education, therefore, the Respondent No. 7, having the qualification of M.A Education, is entitled to be promoted as SST. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the seniority list duly signed and attested by the DEO (SE), Vehari, wherein-the Respondent No. 7 is at Sr. No. 1 and in column "Date of Passing B.Ed. Examination" is mentioned 15.02.1995. When it was confronted to the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 7 and particularly EDO (Education), Vehari, the EDO (Education), Vehari frankly conceded, that this seniority list has been issued by the department and it is correct.
5. After hearing the arguments by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it appears, that the Respondent No. 7 herself submitted the B.Ed degree issued on 15.02.1995 to the department and subsequently on the basis of this, the department mentioned the date in the column of "Date of Passing B.Ed Examination". Further, as evident from the contents of the seniority list, the Respondent No. 7, on the basis of the aforesaid degree dated 15.02.1995, was placed at Sr.
5. No. 1. This B.Ed degree in the inquiry conducted by the District monitoring Officer, Vehari, has been proved fake and the said inquiry officer, at the time of making the report, observed as under: "The degree record of Mst. Sakina Begum (petitioner) is available from the website of AIOU, however, the degree record of Mst. Musarrat Parveen, as per her roll number 15565204 is not traceable on the website on the academic year and seems to be fake."
6. 6.The inquiry officer while concluding the inquiry dated 12.11.2012, made the following findings: "It is obvious that Mst. Sakina Begum is senior to Mst. Musarrat Parveen in terms of date of joining, length of service and promotion as EST.
7. The base on which Mst. Musarrat Parveen was given undue seniority (i.e. Academic qualification) is dubious at best.
8. There is no plausible explanation as to how suddenly Mst. Musarrat Parveen sprang up to the top in the SST seniority list of year 2005.
9. Then EDO Education in his inquiry report dated 26.05.2009 recommended withdrawal of SST orders of Mst. Musarrat Parveen, and forwarding case to ACE establishment on account of forgery. This action was never initiated against the accused.
10. A dubious report was initiated by the EDO Education office in the year 2011, which seems to have a favorable bias for Mst. Musarrat Parveen, it did not take into account the matter of fake degree of the accused. The report is devoid of clarity and on face value seems to be a result of collusion between the education authorities and the undersigned.
11. It is clear to the undersigned that the promotion orders of Mst. Musarrat Parveen in 2005 as SST were not on merit and warrants to be cancelled.
12. The case of Mst. Musarrat Parveen may be referred to ACE establishment for initiating criminal proceedings.
13. ' Furthermore, the pecuniary benefits that she enjoyed during her period as SST may be reclaimed."
14. 7.When EDO (Education), who was present in the Court, asked as to whether any action has been taken against the Respondent No. 7, he replied, that till today, no action in this regard has been taken.
15. 8.It is very strange, that although the respondent department conducted a detailed inquiry and finally the inquiry officer reached to the conclusion, that the B.Ed, degree provided by the Respondent No. 7 at the time of her promotion, is fake but till today no action, as recommended by the inquiry officer/District Monitoring Officer, Vehari, has been taken, therefore, the EDO (Education), Vehari is directed to take action as recommended by the inquiry officer against the delinquent and if necessary, the EDO (Education) will seek the permission from the competent authority including the Secretary Education (Schools). The EDO (Education), Vehari will also determine the validity of the promotion order passed in favour of the Respondent No. 7. The process will be completed positively within a period of 20 days from today and compliance report whereof shall be submitted to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench who will submit the same for perusal.
16. 9.A copy of this order along with the petition shall also be transmitted to the Secretary Education (Schools), Govt. Of the Punjab, to take action in the light of the record and the order passed by this Court.
10. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of with no order as to cost.