This petition is being disposed of as a pacca case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press suspension of the order dated 30-12-1996 and rather requests for a prayer to be appointed as the petitioner is placed at No. I on the merit list prepared by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan as Transport Supervisor.
3. The brief facts of the instant petition are that the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education being the competent Authority for appointment of the employees in BS-11 to BS-16, appointed the petitioner as Transport Supervisor in BS-11 vide order dated 30-9-1993 on contract basis. On 17-I 1-1993 he was termed as an employee under daily wages as the post was created by the Board on 20-5-1995 and the appointment of the petitioner was confirmed in the meeting held on the same day; he was again appointed on ad hoc basis on 28-3-1995 which was later on confirmed by the Board. His appointment was terminated for the reason that he was ad hoc appointee and cannot be termed as a regular incumbent in view of section 10(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. This termination was done without assigning any reason. Later on the Board again advertised the post of Transport Supervisor in daily Jang dated 26-1-1997. A Selection Committee was duly constituted, the petitioner again applied and was placed at No. 1 on the merit list but was not appointed due to the ban imposed by the Secretary vide Letter No. PS/ES/829/97, dated 18-1-1997 captioned as "Instructions on Recruitment to Chairman and Director (EE/SE)".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in W.P. No. 4237 of 1997 has already held that the Board being a statutory and autonomous body and the Chairman being an absolute authority of appointment and termination of service in BS-11 to BS-16, the imposition of ban cannot be imposed on the Board.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Secretary Education being the controlling authority can regulate the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan and the ban can be imposed on the Board to.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The petitioner has not prayed for the consideration of his appointment for the post of Transport Supervisor on regular basis as he participated as a candidate and also passed through all formalities of selection by the Recruitment Committee and was placed at No. 1 on the merit list. However, he has prayed for any other writ, relief or direction expedient in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the suspension of the order dated 30-12-1996 and he will be interested if a direction is given to the Department to consider the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis. He has placed reliance on Sharaf Faridi and others v. The Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (PLD 1989 Karachi 404) to contend that the Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter, has power to mould a relief according to the circumstances of the case. The relevant para being relevant for the sake of convenience is reproduced below: -- "However, there cannot be any doubt that a Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter, has the power to mould a relief according to the circumstances of the case, if dictates of justice so demand even if such a relief has not been expressly claimed provided the relief to be given is within the compass of the jurisdiction of the Court."
Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (PLD 1978 SC 220) in support of the above contention.
7. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the ban imposed by the Secretary Education does not apply to the Board being a statutory and autonomous body and it purely relates to the recruitment in the Education Department and not to the Board and the Chairman being an absolute authority to appoint or terminated the services of the employees of BS-11 to BS- 16 can appoint the petitioner who has been placed at No. 1 on the merit list. A direction is given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner forthwith.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
A.A./M-387/L