MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J---This I.-C.A. Is directed against the order dated 13-4-1992 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of the appellant's writ petition as having borne fruit.
2. Briefly stated the appellant (an ex-Armyman) has applied for the post of an untrained teacher on 3-5-1989 but subsequently he completed his training and applied for one of the posts of P.T.C.
Teachers lying vacant under the control of Deputy District Education Officer (Male), respondent No.2 His application was duly forwarded by the appellant's Commanding Officer on 5-9-1990. At the relevant time the appellant was attending his reservist training with an Army Unit. The Chairman of the District Selection Committee recommended the petitioner's name for appointment as P.T.C. Teacher. The application was duly received in the office of Deputy District Education Officer, who acknowledged its receipt vide order dated 23-10-1990. The appellant was required to provide the original Matriculation, P.T.C. And domicile certificates. The appellant provided the necessary documents but his case was not considered on an erroneous and mala fide report made by the Head Clerk from the office of respondent No.2, who ordered that the appellant's application be filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2, who appeared in person. Admittedly, the appellant was qualified and his application was duly recommended and forwarded by the Chairman of the District Selection Committee. Without looking into the relevant record, the Head Clerk concerned made a wrong report to the effect that the appellant was an untrained teacher. Unfortunately, respondent No.2 also did not care to look into the relevant record and erroneously ordered that the applicant's application be filed. Thus grave injustice was done to the appellant who otherwise deserved to be appointed as P.T.C. Teacher. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition, on 2-11-1991 it was stated by the learned Addl. A.-G. (after obtaining instructions from the Deputy Commissioner) that the appellant's grievance was genuine and needed to be redressed. The mere fact that the appellant could apply for some newly advertised posts and that his application could be considered alongwith other applicants, was hardly sufficient to redress his basic grievance that his case was wrongly left out of consideration by the Competent Authority earlier. We feel that the appellant's writ petition was wrongly disposed of as having borne fruit because the relief prayed for in the petition was not granted to him.
4. For the foregoing discussion we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and declare that the appellant is entitled to be appointed as a P.T.C. Teacher and we order accordingly.
5. We have noted with concern that the Head Clerk had made an incorrect report to the effect that the appellant was an untrained teacher and thereby misled his superiors and set at naught the recommendation made by the Chairman of the District Selection Committee in favour of the petitioner. The Competent Authority should take suitable disciplinary action against the delinquent official in accordance with the rules.