IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUHDRY, J.- it is proposed to decide Writ Petitions Nos.5725, 5726, 6464,6352,6424, 5962,5963,6057,6058,6095,6097 6101,6144,6198,6211,6213,6225,6276,6329,6332,6601,6602 & 6549 of 1999 through this common judgment as the main questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent has asked the petitioners and other English Teachers throughout the Province to take examination on 17.4.1999.
3. Mrs. Nasira Iqbal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners alongwith other have been appointed as English Teachers in regular manner and as per letter of their appointments they are governed by the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (here-in-after to be referred as 'Rules, 1974') as amended upto date. It is added that there was no provision, what-so-ever, either in the Civil Servant Act or Rules, 1974 for taking performance evaluation Examination. It is argued that the notification is discriminatory as the other teachers appointed in other subjects have not been made to undertake this examination. It is added that the whole exercise is illegal, mala fide and the purpose is to throw the petitioners on road and make appointments of on choice.
4. Mr. Zahid Hussain Bokhari Advocate, leamed counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6332/99 argued that the exercise is purposeless and resulted into lot of wastage of time and financial resources. It is added that there is no para meters for the examination.
5. Mr. Naseer Ahmad Bhutta Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6144/99 argued that mostly the teachers are trained and they have also done B.Ed. & M.Ed.
6. Mr. Mahmood Ahmad Qazi, Advocate, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No.6097/99 in support of contentions of the petitioners has placed reliance on Water and Power Development Authority Vs. Irtiqa RasOol Hashmi and another (1987 SCM R 359), Director of Education (Schools)
Lahore Region, Lahore and others Vs. Muhammad Abbas (1998 SCM R 215) and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad 2 others Vs. Muhammad Rafique and others (1997 SCM R 1344).
7. On the other hand, Rana Muhammad Arif, learned Addl.A.G argued that it is a policy matter. The purpose is only to evaluate the performance and nothing more. It is added that no adverse or punitive action would follow the examination, it is argued that all 17,000 English Teachers have been asked to take examination, therefore, it is not a case of discrimination. It is added that the petitioners and all others were appointed on temporary basis, therefore, action can be taken against them. It is added that the examination is provided under Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1974.
8. Mrs. Nasira Iqbal Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners while summing-up the arguments submitted that the position taken up today in the comments and in the arguments on behalf of respondents is contrary to the notification issued to the petitioners to take examine. It is added that no other class of the teachers has been asked to take this examination.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record.
The main question for determination is whether Rules, 1974 provide for examination and if so at what stage? Learned Addl. A.G, in this behalf, has referred to Rule 7(2) of Rules, 1974 which reads as under:- "7(1),...............................
(2) No person shall be confirmed in a post unless he successfully completed Such training and passed such Departmental Examination as may be prescribed."
It is clear from the plain reading of the said rule that it is attracted at the stage of confirmation and secondly that such training and departmental examination must be prescribed. The admitted position is that in the rules no such examination has been prescribed. Besides this there is no provision, whatsoever, for holding examination of the type in dispute. The undertaken given in the report that no adverse or punitive action would be taken on the basis of the result of this examination clearly proved that this examination is not the one provided for under Rule 7 of Rules, 1974. This also becomes clear that there is no merit in the argument that this exercise is purposeful.
10. The respondents cannot super impose the terms and conditions in utter disregard of the law and rules. They have to act and perform their duties strictly in accordance with law and rules.
11. One of the argument on behalf of the respondents was that this exercise is being undertaken at the instance of World Bank. It was the duty of the respondents before undertaking the Earth and has no right to occupy the top slot. We should learn and follow the examples of others on the constructive side. New York about three years back known for its very high crime rate, which was attributed to social, economic and financial problems etc. The officials and citizens have accepted this indignity as their destiny. This is a matter of record that things started improving in short span of about three months with the determination of one person and all theories to justify high rate of crime started fading out. The crime rate appreciably went down. In this behalf reference can be made to an article published in Reader's Digest, June 1997 titled "Where the Police are winning". This is universal truth and not the law and order situation.
12. The upshot of this discussion is that this writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. The result is that Notification dated 17th March, 1999 is set aside being illegal, mala fide and discriminatory.