' TALAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.---The petitioner was appointed as Machine Operator against newly- created post meant for Water Supply Scheme in Municipal. Committee, Marisehra vide order dated 31-7-1994. His appointment was made after taking his test and interview. Subsequently, on 21-9- 1995 he was transferred and posted as Naib Qasid in place of Muhammad Arif, Naib Qasid, with effect from the date of his retirement on Medical Board. He served, department honestly after his appointment and there was no complaint against him. Petitioner was shocked to receive a show- cause notice that he was appointed in violation of Service. Rules and procedure on purely temporary basis under political pressure. He was called upon to show cause within 14 days that why his services should not be terminated for the above reasons. He submitted reply of the said show-cause notice but his services were "dispensed with" with immediate effect as his appointment was found illegal, ab initio void and against the prescribed rules. The petitioner has challenged the said termination order dated 23-2-1997 through writ petition in hand.
2. Sarder Muhammad Irshad, Advocate, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the appointment of the petitioner was made after completing the coal formalities and the petitioner did not exert any political pressure to seek the said appointment. After his appointment he worked honestly and his superior officials were satisfied with his work. The petitioner completed more than two years of service and during this period he never violated the conditions of the service. The respondents did not apply their independent mind before passing the impugned order and as such the order of termination is nullity in the eyes of law. The petitioner has now acquired valuable rights which cannot be taken away otherwise than in accordance with law. The respondents had dispensed with the services of other persons also but they have been reinstated vide order dated 18-11-1997 whereas the petitioner was not treated equally and at par with those persons. He quoted the instances of Ghulam Sarwar Valve-man and Muhammad Ashraf Chowkidar who were reinstated vide order dated 18-11-1997.
3. Mr. Khan Afzal Khan, Advocate the learned counsel representing the respondents Nos,1 to 3 and the learned A.A.-G. Representing respondent No,4 argued that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of political pressure exerted by him and since his appointment was against rule, therefore, his services were rightly dispensed with....
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties twice on 12-1-2000 and 29-2-2000 and perused the record of the case.
5. The appointment of the petitioner vide letter dated 31-7-1994 issued by Chief Officer Municipal Committee, Mansehra and the subsequent transfer order dated 21-9-1995 by the same authority of petitioner as Naib Qasid are not in dispute between the parties. M/s. Muhammad Yousaf the petitioner, through order dated 31-7-1994 and Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Sarwar through order dated 3-11-1994 were appointed against newly created posts meant for Water Supply Scheme Berari Nos,1 and 2, took over by Municipal Committee, Mansehra. The petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for appointment as Machine Operator and subsequently transferred and posted as Naib Qasid. The petitioner during this period worked honestly and there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any complaint against him. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner got his appointment by exerting political pressure. No doubt the petitioner was served with show-cause notice that this appointment was in violation of service Rules and Procedure on purely temporary basis Under political pressure and he was called upon to show cause within 14 days as to why his services should not be terminated for the above reasons but the petitioner submitted detailed reply denying that his appointment was made on political basis. The learned counsel representing the respondents has not been able to show that how his appointment was illegal and what rule was violated at the time of his appointment by respondent No,1. The petitioner, as mentioned above, was appointed in B-1 as Machine Operator by the Chief Officer Municipal Committee Mansehra. It was respondent No,1 on whose orders the said appointment was made. He has been guilty of making irregular appointment on what has been described (purely temporary and on political basis) he has now turned around and terminated the services of the petitioner, due to 'alleged irregularity and violation of rules. He cannot 'be allowed to take benefit of the lapses in order to dispense with the services of the petitioner because respondent No,1 has himself committed irregularity in violating the procedure governing the appointments. It is disturbing to note that petitioner's services were dispensed with without taking any action against the official who issued the appointment letter of the petitioner, if the roles were violated at the time of appointment of petitioner, then the violation was done by the appointing authority and not the petitioner. Instead of taking action against the official who appointed the petitioner in violation of rules, the petitioner who is a poor person has been punished. When asked as to what action was taken by the authorities against the person who made the illegal appointment, the departmental representative had no answer. We are constrained to observe that in recent :few years, a culture has developed in this part of the country that appointments are made by the officials under political pressure or for the consideration best known to them and after lapse of some time the same person turns around and declares the appointment made by him as volatile of rules and regulations. It is done because the person making such appointment knows that there is nobody to take any action against him, therefore, he feels free to issue subsequent letter dismissing/terminating or dispensing with the services of a person who seeks appointment after hectic efforts. We have not been able to find out any illegality or irregularity in the appointment of petitioner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment of the petitioner was not against the rules, hence the petitioner was legally appointed.
6. The petitioner has also been treated discriminately by the respondents. The respondent as mentioned above, had appointed three other persons, namely, Fazalur Rehman, Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Sarwar, through another single order dated 3-11-1994. The services of Ghulam'
Sarwar and Muhammad Ashraf---were also dispensed with vide order dated 23-2-1997 but they were reinstated by respondent No,3 through order dated 18-11-1997. The petitioner had also filed appeal before respondent No,3 but since he had no political backing, his appeal was not considered favourably. We fail to understand as to how M/s. Ghulam Sarwar (Valve-man) and Muhammad Ashraf Chowkidar were reinstated by respondent No,3 on appeal finding that they were appointed in accordance with law and how respondent No,3 ignored the petitioner's case/appeal. Had the respondent No,3 applied his independent mind he would have come to the conclusion that the petitioner's appointment was also in accordance with rules and he also deserved reinstatement because two yardsticks cannot be adopted to the employees appointed by a similar order.
7. Our attention was drawn to Letter No,AO-IV/LCB/4-1/97, dated 21-10-1997 issued by the Secretary Local Council Board stating therein that the Provincial Government in Local Government Department has already framed a policy with regard to employees recruited in Local Council during the period 25-4-1994 to 12-11-1996 according to which the employees in BPS-1 and BPS-2 have been allowed to continue in service unless they did not possess the prescribed qualifications for the post and the cases of 'employees in BPS-3 and above had to be examined on case to case basis. It was clarified that the policy of Local Government Department was communicated vide letter dated 4-3-1997 still holds good and must be followed in letter and spirit and the employees terminated if any may be restored. We have noted with concern that petitioner who was appointed in BPS-1 has not been treated according to the policy of the Government though he fulfilled the requisite qualifications for the post against which he was. Appointed.
8. The net result of the above discussion is that the writ petition of the petitioner merits acceptance and the same is hereby accepted with costs of Rs,2,000. The impugned order dated 23-2-1997 is set aside being discriminatory, against law and without lawful authority. The petitioner is reinstated with full back benefits.