JUDGMENT ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN. - The appellant wa: appointed as a PTC Teacher on 16.9.1989 (Annex-E). She continued t( perform her duties faithfully and diligently but her services were illegally terminated on 1.5.1999 (Annex-J). This order was allegedly arbitrary illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The appellant has assailed this order mainly on the grounds tha she had been appointed by a properly constituted Selection Committee ant she possessed the requisite qualifications, No valid ground has been shown by the respondents for ousting her from service when she stood confirmed in her appointment.
3. The department has defended the impugned order claiming tha she was appointed on the direction of the Minister and her appointment letter was not available in the office record. It was further claimed that he appointment orders were issued by the District Education Officer Bahawalnagar, whereas the competent authority in her case was Dy. DE( concerned.
4. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
5. In this :ase the appellant has performed her, duties about decade and clearly she stood confirmed as a PTC Teacher. The respondent have no mandate in law to terminate her services in this fashion. Even I the appointment was under the orders of the Minister that did not vitiate th appointment inasmuch as the Minister had been granted power by th competent authority vide notification of the S&GAD dated 28.2.198 (Annex-N). There is another aspect of the matter which calls for our attention. The Chief Minister vide his order dated 12.6.1999 has validated the appointment of the Minister (Annex-O).
6. As for the objection that the competent authority was Dy. DEO concerned and not DEO. It may be noted that this irregularity was committed by the departmental officers and for this lapse the appellant could not have been punished by any rule of equity or justice. Reference in this behalf may be made to PLD 1964 SC 572, 1996 SCMK 413 and 1997 SCMR15.
7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is absolutely without any lawful authority and is hereby set aside. The appeal is accepted and the appellant is reinstated in service with all back benefits and she shall be deemed to be in service from the day she was removed by means of impugned order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.