' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mrs. Bilqis Ishaq was serving in Pakistan Embassy School, Jeddah, since 16-4-1970 and her services were terminated with three months termination notice dated 7-10-1985 issued by the Principal of the school under the orders of the Ambassador. Her representation did not bear her any fruit. After long waiting under hopes, she preferred this appeal on 19-3-1989.
2. The respondents have resisted the appeal contending that the appellant was not a qualified teacher and her services were terminated in accordance with the rules. They have also taken the legal pleas that the appellant is not a civil servant as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and that the appeal is time-barred as well.
3. The first and foremost question for consideration is the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as it has been contended by the respondents that the appellant 'was not a civil servant within the meaning of the term civil servant contained in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. To resolve this issue, reference may be made to the nature of appointment of the appellant. She was appointed vide order dated 16-4- 1970 which is Annexure B at page 15 of the memo of appeal. It is reproduced below: "EMBASSY OF PAKISTAN JEDDAH APRIL 16, 1970.
Miss Balqis Jehan Matriculate is hereby appointed as a teacher in Pakistan Embassy Secondary School, Jeddah on a salary of Rs,400 p.m. (fixed).
' The appointment will be temporary in the first instance and can be made permanent if the work as well as conduct of the teacher is found satisfactory.
(SD.) Military Attache Embassy of Pakistan Jeddah."
' The learned counsel for the respondents have explained that two types of educational institutions were maintained by Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia. The schools of first category were those established by the Government of Pakistan through its Ministry of Education, and the second category comprised schools established by the Pakistan community living there. According to him, the schools of the first category are maintained by the Government of Pakistan, whereas the schools of the second category are administered by the society with the co-sponsorship of the local Government. He pointed out that the schools of the second category were of two types, one being purely private institutions and other category of those schools which are affiliated with the Secondary Board of Education. The learned counsel also stated that the Ambassador was head of the private institution as a Chairman of the Board, but that fact did not convert the private schools to be the institution of the Government of Pakistan. He made pointed reference to a Letter No,F.4- 4/81- SA, dated 22-6-1981 from the Ministry of Education to the Embassy of Pakistan at Abu Dhabi, communicating decision of the Cabinet on the subject of "Pakistani Schools abroad" to the effect that all schools established by Pakistan community missions abroad would be named universally as "Pakistan Schools" and they would be run as private institutions, with their Board of Governors and the Ambassador of the country would be the Chairman of the Board and personally responsible for the proper maintenance of the accounts and funds of the schools and the Ministry would continue handling those schools and provide all possible help and guidance to them and provide staff and facilities etc., where needed. It would appear from the very appointment order of the appellant and the decision of the Cabinet, referred to above, that the Educational Institutions established by the community or even by the Ambassador of the country for the benefit of the community living there were not Government institutions. It thus follows that the appellant was not enjoying the status of a civil servant while serving as a teacher in the Pakistan Embassy Schools at Jeddah and she cannot seek relief from this Tribunal for her reinstatement in service. Since the matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it would not be worthwhile to touch the other legal questions and go into the merits of the case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
4. Before parting with the case, we are constrained to observe that the termination of service of the appellant, after she had put in fifteen years service, merely on the ground that she did not possess the requisite academic qualifications prescribed under the rules made in 1984, was an oppressive action and it needed intervention of the concerned authorities and it should not have been left rolling hither-thither and ultimately closed in 1989.