I intend to decide Writ Petition No, 4755 of 1999; W.P. No 4756 of 1999; W.P. No, 4757 of 1999; W.P. No, 4758 of 1998; Writ Petition No, 4759 of 1999; Writ Petition No,4760 of 1999; Writ Petition No,4761 of 1999; Writ Petition No,4762 of 1999; Writ Petition No,4763 of 1999; Writ Petition No, 4764 of 1999 and Writ Petition No,4765 of 1999 by one consolidated order as having similar facts and law.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as P.T.C. teachers in the year 1983. Respondent No,2 issued show-cause notice to the petitioners on 1-2-1998 on the ground that the petitioners have been appointed with single order. Subsequently services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondents vide orders dated 4-5-1999.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners that their appointments were illegal on the ground that they were appointed by one/single order; whereas termination orders reveal that services of the petitioners were not regularised. It is further contended that contents of show-cause notice and termination orders are contradicting each other, therefore, competent Authority has not passed the order after applying its independent mind; that the competent Authority in case of the petitioners is Deputy District Education Officer whereas the impugned orders have been passed by District Education Officer, therefore, impugned orders were passed by the incompetent authority. He relied upon (1998 SCMR 91); that petitioners should not be penalized by the act of public functionaries; that vested rights have been accrued to the petitioners as the petitioners were appointed in the year 1983; whereas the impugned orders were passed in the year 1999. This fact is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the respondents have passed the orders mala fide against the petitioners. He relied upon (1992 SCMR 1652); (1996 SCMR 1350); that writ petition is maintainable even in presence of alternative remedy and relied upon (1998 SCMR 91); that the action of respondents is in violation of efficiency and Discipline Rules, therefore, impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and relied upon (1999 PLC (C.S.) 548). He summed up his arguments that the impugned orders are not speaking orders and are the result of malice and coram non judice.
4. Learned A.A.-G., appeared on Court's call and contended that writ petitions are not maintainable by virtue of Article 212 read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of petitioners. He relied upon Khalid Mehmood's case (1998 SCMR 2280). He further stated that petitioners have alternative remedy before the Department to agitate the matter by way of representations/appeals before the competent authority. He summed up his arguments that the writ petitions are not maintainable even if the orders have been passed by the incompetent authority by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that the termination orders are related to the terms and conditions of the petitioners, therefore, writ petitions are not maintainable by virtue of Article 212 of Constitution read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act as the principle laid down by the Humble Supreme Court in Yamin's case (PLD 1980 SC 22). It is pertinent to mention here that Yamin's case was decided by the Full Bench of the Humble Supreme Court whereas, the case cited by the petitioners' counsel was decided by two Humble Judges of Humble Supreme Court. Even otherwise Sh. Abdul Aziz's case (1998 SCMR 91) is distinguishable on facts and law as the point of jurisdiction was not raised and decided by the Humble Supreme Court. The Humble Supreme Court also considered this proposition of law in Muhammad Latif's case (PLD 1988 SC 387) and laid down the principle that the High Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter as is envisaged by Article 212 of the Constitution; thereafter this proposition of law was also considered in Abdul Wahab's case (PLD 1989 SC 506). The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khalid Mehmood's case 1998 SCMR 2280.
It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Abdul Aziz's case in Khalid Mehmood's case and laid down the principle that the High Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter with regard to the matter of terms and conditions of ,a civil servant and approved the following judgments: 1992 SCMR 365; 1994 SCMR 539; 1997 SCMR 167; 1997 SCMR 169; and 1990 SCMR 999.
The other citation cited by the petitioners' counsel are distinguishable on facts and law. These writ petitions have no merits.
In the interest of justice and fair play, let copy of these writ petitions be sent to Secretary Education, who shall look into the matter personally on humanitarian grounds and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within one month after receiving the order of this Court and also submit report to the D.R.(J) of this Court. Disposed of.