This order will also dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 3144/97,3280/97, 3468/97, 3472/97, 3515/97, 3574/97, 3608/97, 3613/97, 3709/97, 3740/97, 3756/97, 3855/97, 3865/97, 3873/97, 3874/97, 3875/97, 3876/97,3877/97, 3878/97, 3881/97, 3881/97, 3896/97, 3899/97, 3900/97, 3992/97, 4001/97, 4015/97, 4050/97, 4074/97, 4090/97, 4098/97, 4100/97, 4101/97,4110/97, 4119/97, 4158/97, 4161/97, 4133/97, 4218/97, 4241/97, 4252/97, 4314/97, 4325/97, 4326/97, 4343/97, 4406/97, 4427/97, 4428/97, 4429/97,4479/97, 4480/97, 4564/97, 4602/97, 4618/97, 4625/97, 4631/97, 4651/97, 4653/97, 4653/97, 4680/97, 4684/97, 4701/97, 4713/97, 4740/97, 4766/97,5094/97, 5059/97, 5079/97, 5106/97, 5110/97, 5127/97, 5132/97, 5133/97, 5143/97, 5272/97, 5280/97, 5281/97, 5441/97, 5597/97, 5639/97, 5830/97,5839/97, 5886/97, 5924/97, 6209/97, 6210/97, 6221/97, 6631/97, 6770/97, 6809/97, 6954/97, 8001/97, 8002/97, 88127/97,8184/97,8157/97,8334/97,8601/97, 8788/97, 8885/97, 8896/97, 2213/96, 5579/96,5386/96,2809/97 and 11724 of 1997 as questions of law and facts raised in all of them are identical.
2. The petitioners were appointed as teachers. Those who could not get appointment expressed concern over the same and filed Constitutional petitions before this Court alleging that the appointments were not made on merits and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the authorities for the purpose. One of the said Constitutional petitions i,e, 15470 of 1997 came up for hearing before my learned brother Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J., who after hearing the parties disposed of said writ petition with the direction that the appointments made should be reprocessed by the Department Recruitment Committee and those appointments which would be found to have been made in accordance with the criteria and on merits should be retained whereas against posts becoming available the candidates on merits should be appointed.
3. In pursuance of the said direction the cases of all the appointments were re-examined and reprocessed. Since in respect of the petitioners it was found that their appointments were not made on merits and according to the criteria their merit position was below the others, therefore, orders for appointments were cancelled and other persons who were found to have obtained higher position in the merit list according to the said criteria were appointed which orders have been challenged in these Constitutional petitions.
4. Learned Advocate-General submitted that by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution this Court is debarred from interfering in such matters under Article 199 as the remedy of the petitioners lies before the Service Tribunal in appeal as provided in the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that it is a case of determination by the departmental authorities, question of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be appointed against a post, therefore, under section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, no appeal lies against such a decision before the Service Tribunals, as such, one of the conditions provided in Article 212 of the Constitution for ousting the jurisdiction of this Court has not been fulfilled, as such, Constitutional petition is maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners during arguments submitted that if each and every case is examined by this Court the petitioner want to demonstrate that the merit position according to the criteria has not been correctly determined and if correctly determined the merit position of the petitioners would be higher than those who have been appointed after cancellation of the appointment orders of the petitioners.
7. It is clear from this argument that it was not a case of determination by the authorities about the fitness or otherwise of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a post whereas the petitioners want redressal of the grievance that the merit position had not been correctly determined according to the settled criteria.
8. Syed Talib Hussain Shah, D.E.O., Narowal who is present in the Court when questioned as to what was the criteria fixed by the departmental authorities for different posts of teachers submitted that for P.T.C. Teachers basic qualification was Matriculation.
The marks were allocated as under:-- 1 Division 45 2 Division 42 3 Division 30 If a candidate was F.A., additional Marks for this additional educational qualification were allocated as under:-- '
1 Division 5 2 Division 3 3 Division 2 If a candidate was from Rural Area additional 5 marks were allocated to him and if a candidate who was Hafiz-e-Quran 5 marks were allocated to him on that account. P.T.C. Teachers were allocated the following marks: 1 Division 15 2 Division 13 3 Division 10 He also stated that as regards S.V.T. Teachers Basic Qualification was F.A. In order to determine the merit position of each candidate following marks were allocated:-- Matric 1 Division 22 Matric 2 Division 21st nd rd st nd rd st nd rd st nd Matric 3 Division 15 F.A. 1 Division 23 F.A. 2 Division 21 F.A. 3 Division 15 B.A. 1 Division 5 B.A. 2 Division 3 B.A. 3 Division 2 M.A. 1 Division 5 M.A. 2 Division 3 M.A. 3 Division 2 Rural Area 5 Hafiz-e-Quran 5 C.T. 1 Division 15 C.T. 2 Division 13 C.T. 3 Division 10 He submitted that in order to avoid any chance of favouritism it was decided that no marks should be allocated for viva/interview. Keeping in view the said criteria merit position of each candidate was determined and list prepared. The appointments were made against the available posts from those who were in the said merit list. According to the merits the petitioners could not be appointed on merits here for their appointments are cancelled.
9. It is manifest that a criteria was clearly laid down known to everybody. Learned Advocate- General submitted that even if any of the petitioners still feel that his merit position has not been determined according to the said criteria the departmental authorities are ready as stated in the parawise comments to consider their representation if made within 10 days from today and they shall have no hesitation in case representation is found to have merits to pass fresh orders.
Learned Advocate-General in support of his contention that even in these circumstances the remedy of the petitioners lies before the Service Tribunal as their only plea was that merit position had not been correctly determined, relies upon judgment reported as Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Government of Punjab and others (1995 SCMR page 1016) in which in similar circumstances regarding determination of merit position of different candidates as regards remedy before the Service Tribunal it was held as under:-- "If the petitioners' appointments were in accordance with law as contended by them, termination of their services without any justifiable reason would entitle them to maintain appeals before the Service Tribunal and not a writ petition or Intra-Court Appeal or the present petitions for leave to appeal, the Service Tribunal is competent to go into the question, whether their appointments were made in accordance with law and whether termination of their services was warranted by law in view of clear provision of Article 212 of the Constitution. In this behalf, reference may be made to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others (PLD 1994 SC 539)). We are, therefore, of the view that the present petitions for leave to appeal are misconceived. The petitioners should approach Service Tribunal. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the petitioners will now file appeals before the Tribunal, the same may be treated time-barred. It will suffice to observe that the petitioners may file applications for condonation of delay and the learned Service Tribunal will consider above applications keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case and the factum that a large number of people are involved therein."
10.In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in this judgment there is no room left to entertain any doubt that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 in these matters is barred byrd st nd rd st nd rd st nd rd st nd rd virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution, therefore, the petitioners may seek remedy before the Service Tribunal in accordance with law after availing remedy of making representation before the departmental authorities which undertaken by the learned Advocate-General shall be decided expeditiously.
11.For the foregoing reasons the writ petitions are hereby dismissed in limine.