' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, ACTG. C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 19-12-1997, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No,21486 of 1997.
2. Facts, in brief, are that the respondents herein applied for various posts advertised by the Education Department. After preliminary scrutiny, a merit list was prepared whereby the respondents were found eligible for various posts. In consequence, they were appointed as teachers by the appointing authority. Respondents joined their respective posts. Vide order, dated 19-2-1997, the petitioner No,4 directed the appointments to be held in abeyance. It was alleged that above order was issued at the behest of Pir Muhammad Arif Hussain Bokhari, MPA, Hafizabad, who wanted to accommodate his own party men and for that purpose he made complaints to the Chief Minister, who constituted a District Scrutiny Committee and Divisional Recruitment/Scrutiny Committee. Above MPA was made member of the later Committee while former Committee was headed by a District and Sessions Judge. Matter was probed and only six persons were found to have been irregularly appointed.
' After submission of the' report, petitioner No,2 vide order dated 19-6-1997 directed District Education Officer (petitioner No,4 herein), to reissue appointment orders of the respondents subject to clearance to be obtained from Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad. The respondents were also directed to appear before the Chairman of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala for verification of their educational and other documents as a last step before issuance of pay slips. The respondents complied with the direction but in spite of this, requisite certificates were not issued.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondents approached the Lahore High Court through Constitutional petitions for redressed of their grievances. Petitioners Nos.2 and 4 appeared before the High Court.
They were unable to give any satisfactory explanation for the orders impugned in the writ petitions.
On the contrary, petitioner No,2 in his written statement conceded all the averments made in the writ petitions. The learned Judge in Chambers came to the conclusion that the appointments of the respondents were held in abeyance merely because of the fact that the concerned officers hesitated to take responsibility of their illegal action taken against the respondents, for extraneous considerations or due to pressure from political authority or any other authority or person. The High Court, after thorough scrutiny of material produced before it recorded a finding that no irregularity or illegality was committed in the appointments of the respondents on various posts. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 5 of the impugned order, which reads thus:-- "5. The resume' of the facts afore noted would show that the petitioners were appointed on their respective posts after due scrutiny and determination of merit. They also joined their respective posts and performed their duties for about 7 days. It was thereafter that the orders in regard to their appointment on the respective posts were held in abeyance for further scrutiny by the committee constituted by the Chief Minister allegedly on the complaints of certain persons. The Scrutiny Committees also conducted their probe and found as a matter of fact that there was no irregularity in the appointment of the petitioners. The time taken in the scrutiny did make all the difference inasmuch as no one out of the concerned authorities appeared to be courageous enough to take the responsibility so as to recall the order whereby the orders of appointments of the petitioners were held in abeyance. It is so obvious from the comments submitted by respondents Nos.2 and 3 that both of them have been looked in for somebody else to take the responsibility in so far as release reissue of the appointment letters of the petitioners are concerned. This could only be done by recalling the order whereby the orders of appointment were held in abeyance by respondent No,4. Strangely enough respondent No,4 has remained silent throughout proceedings manifestly under the pressure of the MPA of the area as also the Deputy Commissioner of the District. The appointments of the petitioners having once made by the competent authority, the Deputy Commissioner of the District had nothing to do with the same nor could the rider be introduced thereby requiring the petitioners to obtain NOC from the Deputy Commissioner so that their appointments could be regularized. It would be noted that the Deputy Commissioner of the District did not figure anywhere in the discipline prescribed for the posts on which the petitioners were appointed. The learned Additional A.-G having been confronted with the comments and the summary of respondent No,3 simply requested that the result of the summary be awaited. I think enough is enough the petitioners have waited that long; have undergone two scrutinizes appeared time and again before the various authorities but with no fruitful results. This case appears to be of extreme inaction on the part of the functionaries of the Education Department which may not be allowed any further. After all there must be an end to an uncalled for inquiry being conducted by the Education Department. The two scrutinizes already made have not yielded the results which the interested parties or for the matter the complainants, if any, wanted in the matter. Since no irregularity has been found or determined in the cases of appointments of the petitioners, therefore, there is no justification left for keeping in abeyance the orders of their appointments nor the petitioners can be compelled to obtain a clearance certificate from the Deputy Commissioner of the District."
4. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Riaz Lone, learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the material available on record. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity with the well- reasoned impugned order.