As common questions of law and facts arise in Writ Petitions Nos. 17009, 17011, 17012, 17013, 17014, 17199, 17026, 17028, 17039, 17045, 17047, 16253, 17019, 17023, 17198 and 16253 of 1993, they shall be disposed of by this joint order.
2. Services of the writ petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 17009, 17011, 17012, 17013, 17014 and 17199 of 1993 as PTC-teachers were terminated on 25-10-1993 by the Deputy District Education Officer, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha. Services of writ petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 17026, 17028, 11 7039, 17045 and 17047 of 1993 as Arabic teachers were terminated by District Education Officer (E.E)
(MALE), Sargodha on 2-11-1993. Petitioner Mst. Ismat Tahira in W.P. No. 16253/.93, was appointed as Drawing Master on 9-3-1993 and her services were terminated by District Education Officer (EE)
(W), Sargodha vide Order No. 162548, dated 25-10-1993. Services of writ petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos:17019, 17023 and 17198 of 1993 were also terminated as EST/S.V. Teachers by the respective DEOs, Sargodha on 25-10-1993, 2-11-1993 and 25-10-1993 respectively. The services of petitioner Mst.
Rehana Kausar in W.P. No. 17200/93 as Physical Education Teacher were terminated by District Education Officer (Women) E.E., Sargodha. All of them have challenged the impugned orders passed in their respective cases by the respective District Education Officers on the ground that their initial induction into service as teachers was gone ahead only after thorough scrutiny of the documents appended by them to their respective applications and after the concerned Recruitment/Committee had approved their induction into service according to law. In relation to the writ-petitioners in W.Ps. Nos.17026, 17028, 17039, 17045 and 17047 of 1993 their case is that the certificates obtained by them from the concerned religious institutions (Deeni Madaras) were not given due weight by the respondent-District Education Officer at the time of re-doing of the merit list in accord with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.10245/93 on 30-8-1993.
3. Malik Muhammad Hussain Awan, learned counsel appearing in support of these petitions, has referred to the material in relation to writ petitioners who were inducted into service of the Education Department as Arabic Teachers as also to the various letters/directions issued by the Director of Public Instructions Punjab, Lahore and Secretary to the Government of the Punjab in the Education Department to the effect that the certificates obtained by the applicants for the posts of Arabic -Teachers from the religious institutions (Deeni Madaras) shall be taken into consideration and argued that such an effort was made at the time of initial induction into service of the petitioners and the subsequent directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.10245/93 to consider the individual cases of the petitioners in accord with the merit list prepared then, has not been kept in view while rendering the impugned orders. According to him, failure on the part of the respondent - -authorities to treat the initial seniority list as the last word on the subject has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and can be treated as conferring a right on them to ask for a writ/order in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law and allow the petitioners to continue in service. In relation to the other writ petitioners who were appointed as PTC, Drawing Master, EST/S.V. And Physical Education Teachers it is argued that they were not provided an adequate opportunity to show cause against their alleged illegal appointments made between December, 1992 and February/March, 1993 and, therefore, they are also entitled to be continued in' service:
4. I have considered the arguments and also perused the material placed on the record and the judgments rendered in Writ Petitions Nos.10245, 12204 and 12143 of 1993. A perusal of the judgment dated 30-8-1993 rendered in W.P. No. 10245/93 shows that the competent authority in case of persons similarly placed as the petitioners was directed to summon them and pass a speaking order in the matter of their appointments, "exclusively on the basis of the merit list already prepared by the Department". The succeeding sentence to the afore-quoted except from the judgment in para. 8 is to the following effect:-- "Needless to add that in case it is found that the petitioner does not fall within the merit list, he shall not be entitled to continue in service and formal termination order would be passed by the competent authority in this behalf."
It is in strict compliance with the direction issued by this Court in the afore---referred causes, which included the cases of some of the petitioners as well, that the impugned orders have been passed by the competent authorities in their cases. A reference to the impugned orders shows that all the writ petitioners were summoned by the concerned quarters and directed to appear before them in person and to submit their defence for their illegal appointment as teachers in various categories. It has been specifically- mentioned, in all the orders that the competent authorities found that none of the petitioners qualified for appointment as per Government Recruitment Policy in accordance with the merit list prepared by the Department. Such a finding is succeeded by the operative part of the orders to the effect that the petitioners are not entitled to continue in service and, therefore, their services are terminated with immediate effect. It is not the case of the petitioners that in obedience to the notices issued to them by the competent authorities they submitted any material to contend that either their initial induction into service was without any taint or that issuance of notices to them, detailed in the impugned orders was, in fact, an incorrect assertion on their part. Even otherwise a presumption of regularity attaches to the entries in official record and it is the burden of the aggrieved person/s to dislodge the presumption, and I that too before the appropriate forum. The bar created under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in relation to a grievance being made against the final orders of departmental authorities about the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in this Court, is clearly attracted. Moreover, the petitioners can raise all available pleas before the concerned departmental authorities under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act (No. VIII of 1974) and/or before the appropriate Service Tribunal, under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (No. IX of 1974). These petitions bearing Writ Petitions Nos. 17009, 17011, 17012, 17013, 17014, 17199, 17026, 17028, 17039, 17045, 17047, 16253,170191 17023, 17198 and 16253 of 1993, are not maintainable here and are, accordingly, dismissed in limine.