ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Miss Fakhur-un-Nisa Naqvi has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein she has impleaded the Director of Education, Lahore Division Lahore, the Director Public Instructions, Punjab, Lahore and the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 10-2-1976 passed by respondent No. 1 and dated 22-10-1980 passed by respondent No. 2 refusing to nationalise the services of the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Miss Fakhur-un-Nisa Naqvi, the appellant claims that she was appointed as a teacher in the privately managed Kashmir Girls High School, Shalimar Town, Lahore on 4-5-1971 before the nationalization of the educational institutions: That on 15th March, 1972 the Government of Pakistan announced the education policy outlining the scheme for nationalization of privately-managed Colleges and Schools. That for the implementation of education policy, M.L.R.
118 was promulgated w.e f. 1-4-1972. Para. 5 of the Regulation provided that w.e.f.1-10-1972 all privately-managed schools together with all property attached to them shall vest in the Central Government, if they are situated in the Islamabad Capital territory and in the Provincial Government, if they are situated in a Province. The appellant claims that according to M.L.R. 118 her services had to be nationalised from 1-10-1972 because the appellant was in service before and on 1-10-1972 of the privately-managed Kashmir Girls High School, Shalimar Town, Lahore which was nationalized by the Punjab Government. However, the Education Department did not agree to this plea of the appellant. The appellant was also informed of this decision of Director of Education, Lahore Division, Lahore dated 10-2-1976 that the case of the appellant was considered by the Committee framed by the Provincial Directorate and as the record produced before the Committee was found to be bogus, the Committee did not recommend her case. This claim regarding nationaliza--tion of services of the appellant was again considered by the Omission Cases Committee constituted by the Director Public Instructions, Punjab, Lahore on 30-9-1980, her claim was rejected as the record produced did not indicate its correctness. The same was conveyed to the appellant vide Director of Education endorsement dated 22-10-1980. Hence this appeal.
3. The case was argued by the appellant's counsel on the grounds that the appellant was working as a teacher in privately-managed Kashmir Girls High School, Shalimar Town, Lahore on the date of its nationalization and thus the services of the appellant stood nationalized from 1-10-1972 accor-- ding to M. L. R.
118. The nationalization of the service of the appellant is being denied by the Education Department on flimsy and uncalled for excu--ses. The appellant's counsel argued that the Acquaintance Roll maintained by Kashmir Girls High School authorities shows that the appellant was paid from 1-7-1972 to 30-9-1972 as teacher and thus she was an employee of the Kashmir Girls High School at the time of its nationalization. Further--more a reference be made to Annexure `D' alongwith her appeal wherein the Director of Education had recommended to Director Public Instrunctions, Punjab, Lahore that the services of the appellant be nationalized as her case merits consideration. Controverting these arguments the learned Special Government Pleader produced the Acquittance Roll Register so relied upon by the appellant's counsel and brought by the representative of the Education Department, to show that the Acquittance Roll from the period July, 1972 onward though stamped did not contain the signature of the appellant. It reveals that the record was prepared long after the nationalization and this record is bogus and cannot be relied upon. Furthermore the learned Government Pleader argued that the same view was taken by a committee consisting of A. D. (S)-I, A. D. (S)-II and D. D. (G), Lahore Division in their meeting held on 24-11-1975 in the D. D. (W) room that the record produced before the committee is bogus and was prepared long after the nationalization. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that this record was again examined by Omission Cases Committee on 30-9-1980 constituted by the Director Public Instructions, Punjab, Lahore. This committee had their independent views as well that the record produced before them did not indicate its correctness. Concluding his argument the learned Government Pleader submitted that the appellant is not a civil servant as claimed by her, as she has failed to prove the same.
4. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. We have gone through the Acquittance Roll Register produced before us.
The Acquittance Roll Register does not contain the signature of the appellant for having received her salary from July, 1972 onward, although the revenue stamps are there.
This adds to the ingenuineness of this case and claim of the appellant that she was working in the privately-managed Kashmir Girls High School, Shalimar Town, Laho a as a teacher on the date of nationalization which she has failed to establish from the record. We have also gone through the report of the Committee dated 24-11-1975, from the record produced before us by the Education Department, where in it has been clearly mentioned that this record is bogus and it reveals that the record was prepared long after the nationalization. The committee did not certify the genuineness of the case and the record. The Director Public, Instructions again got re-examined the case of the appellant through another Omission Cases Committee on 30-9-1980. The Committee again rejected the claim as the record produced did not indicate its correctness. The letter Annexure `D' relied so by the appellant dated 19-6-1980 where the recommendation was made by the Director of Education to the Director Public Instructions, Punjab, Lahore also hold no grounds as the Omission Cases Committee appointed by the Director Public Instructions examined the case thoroughly and gave their verdict on a later date i. e. 30-9-1980 which was conveyed to the appellant on 22-10-1980. Keeping the above facts in view the appellant has not been able to prove that she was working as school teacher in the Kashmir Girls High School, Shalimar Town, Lahore at the time of its nationalization on 1-10-1972. Thus, she cannot be considered as civil servant from that date. As the appellant has failed to prove herself as a civil servant thus this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, the appellant no being a member of civil service, as defined in section 2 (1) (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
5. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal, is also not maintainable and is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.