TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J.- Petitioner's application dated 24.6.1995 was received by the Registrar of this Court through registered post which was put up before the learned Inspecting Judge for District Mandi Bahauddin who directed it to be treated as a Writ Petition.
2. The grievance agitated through this petition is that petitioner having cleared her matriculation examination in the 1st Division by securing-511 out of 850 marks, applied for appointment as a P.T.C.
Teacher in August, 1993. There were in all 20 seats and the petitioner had a merit to be appointed but the officials concerned dishonestly considered her marks in Matric which she previously secured (439 out of 850) in matriculation examination and thereby ignored her. Parawise comments submitted by the Deputy District Education Officer (W) Phalia, DistrictMandi Bahauddin (who is the competent authority for appointment) are to the effect that petitioner gave application for appointment on 23.5.1992 and the matriculation certificate attached with the application indicated that she secured 439 out of 850 marks, that she gave an application to the Anti- Corruption Department but the enquiry was dropped; that a separate enquiry is being conducted by the District Education Officer Mandi Bahauddin and an action would be taken in the light of the report to be submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The comments are dated 15.8.1995.
3. Despite a lapse of more than two years, the enquiry has not been completed. The record of the case was therefore, requisitioned by this Court. A notice was also issued to the Deputy District Education Officer(W) Tehsil Phailia, District Mandi Baha-uddin as well as to the Director Elementary Education Gujranwala who both have appeared and have been heard.
4. The Director of Education Elementary Gujranwala, having examined the record admits that petitioner had improved her division in Matric by securing 511 marks out of 850 and on that account she was entitled to appointment in 1993; that she had given application agitating her claim within a month of the appointments made; that she had sent applications to the District Education Officer, Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner Mandi Bahauddin; Director Education, Secretary Education Government of the Punjab and that the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 10.8.1994 directed the Director of Education . Elementary Gujranwala that the omission be rectified and the delinquent officials may be proceeded under the E&D Rules; that no proper inquiry was conducted under the E&D Rules against the delinquent officials; that she had been ignored on account of the fault of the departmental officials and he in the afore-referred circumstances had nothing to say in defence of the Department except to seek forgiveness.
5. In view of the outright admission made by the Director of Education Elementary Gujranwala but the petitioner had a merit to be appointed in 1993 and that she was ignored on account of the lapse of the departmental officials, this Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be appointed as a PTC Teacher forthwith. The Director of Education has placed on record a copy of the appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which has been handed over to the petitioner in Court.
6. As the lapse of the department in ignoring the petitioner was apparent on record and stood admitted by the Director of Education Elementary Gujranwala in Court, a notice was issued to the Education Department as well as to the Advocate General, Punjab as to why the Education Department may not be burdened with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be given to the petitioner as had she been appointed in August, 1993 alongwith other candidates, she would have earned more than Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of salaries. The only ground urged by the Director of Education against costs was that since Department had issued the appointment letter in favour of the petitioner as a PTC Teacher, costs may not be awarded. The learned Advocate General, Punjab having checked the record has been fair to concede that the petitioner had a right to be appointed as far back as 1993; that the lapse on the part of the Education Department is unpardonable but only prayed that the cost should not be awarded awarded as this may set a precedent and "open a pandora 's-box".
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has suffered at the hands of the respondent- officials, She worked hard to improve her Division in Matric but even her improved Division did not bring her relief. In^the merit list prepared, she was shown at Sr. No. 31 although the Deputy District Education Officer as also the Director of Education Elementary Gujranwala, admitted that she ought to have been at Sr. No. 11 in the 20 PTC Teachers who were appointed in the year, 1993. This was done by wilfully ignoring her matriculation certificate indicating her 1st Class in the Departmental file. The said certificate is admittedly available on the departmental file requisitioned by this Court. This injustice was brought to the notice of the department within a month of the appointments made, but the concerned officials for mala fide reasons did nothing to undo the wrong. Even the Deputy Commissioner Mandi Bahauddin having held the enquiry vide his letter dated. 18.10.1994 (No. 11521-24) which is available on record, held and directed as under;- "A perusal of reply of Deputy District Education, Officer(W) Phalia shows that Mst. Naila Iqbal applied for the post of PTC, on time, However, at the time of preparation of merit list, office mentioned her marks as 439 only instead of 511. She was assigned Serial No. 33, on the merit list.
Had actual marks obtained by Mst. Naila Iqbal been considered she would have definitely been selected for the post of PTC on merit, The error/omission may be rectified now under the rules under intimation to the undersigned. The delinquent officials may also be proceeded under E&D Rules",
8. The afore-referred letter was also ignored. She had been moving from pillar to post for relief but she was denied the right to which she was entitled, Her petition before this Court dated 24.6,1995 makes a pathetic reading, she says,"
4- i/11 6.
2Lw\-jf 6^ 7 J? -/&<*/-Sdi if^^ Sc-St^G- -l_if JiijtJ* &>X*rs\y&'b'- {{urdu text}}
8. Although by the order of this Court, she has now been appointed but she would be junior to those Teachers who were appointed in 1993, despite their lower merit. In these proceedings, it may not be appropriate to pass any order qua her seniority in service. However, when institutions entrusted with appointments flagrantly violate the merit, resulting in financial loss and psychological shock to the victim, this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not burden those responsible for the lapse with cost and further if the same is not paid to the victim as compensation. Awarding of costs is necessary as a token of punishment to those on account of whom, the petitioner had to remain in agony for so long. Costs ordinarily are to be recovered from the individuals responsible for the derelection of duty. But as the department has failed to fix the individual liability and has only sought forgiveness, I have no option but to burden the Education Department with a cost of Rs.
1,00,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner as compensation. However, it shall be open to the department to recover this amount subsequently from the delinquent officials concerned, if it is able to fix the individual liability through proper enquiry. On the question of awarding costs, I am fortified in my view by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khurshid Ahmad Naz Faridi v.
Bashir Ahmad and 3 others (1993 SCM R 639) where at page 642, it was observed as under:- "The object of granting such costs may be two-folded. One, to compensate the aggrieved party, who in successful assertion/defence of his right, has been put to un-necessary litigation and harassm ent. The other object is to penalise a party who may have initiated any action or passed the order in complete disregard of the obvious and glaring facts and provisions of law which a reasonable person would not do unless he acts with highhandedness, arbitrarily, mala fide or ulterior motive. Where a person acting in his official capacity in complete disregard of the clear records and documents and having no authority to pass any order of a particular nature, passes such an order, then while meeting aside such order the Court awards costs to be paid by him personally, it will be proper exercise of discretion."
9. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to Secretary Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore for information and necessary compliance. He shall issue a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner within ten days of the receipt of the judgment and the cheque shall be delivered to the petitioner personally by the Director of Education Elementary Gujranwala.
10. A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the District and Accounts Officer Gujranwala for information and record. He shall ensure that the petitioner is paid the salary with effect from her date of appointment.