' This order will dispose of Writ Petition No,11865 of 2000 as well.
2. The petitioners in both the cases are the employees of the Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore. All of them were appointed to various posts in the Punjab Text Book Board under the orders of the then Education Minister. They have been put to a show-cause notice for termination of their services on the ground that their appointments were made due to political interference and without any advertisement. These show-cause notices have been assailed in these petitions which arise in the following background.
3. Apprehending termination of their services Tariq Mehmood and 7 others approached this-Court in W.P. No,17602 of 1995 which was disposed of on 20-12-1995 on the statement of the learned counsel for the Punjab Text Book Board that the petitioners in the said case were regular employees and the department had no intention of termination of their services. Thereafter, Tariq Mehmood and 10 others again approached this Court in W.P. 3789 of 1997 which was disposed of vide order dated 15-3-1999 of this Court with the following order: "2. Learned counsel for the respondent Punjab Text Book Board, appearing in Court submits that the petition is pre-mature; that presently the Board has no intention to terminate petitioners services and in case the Board decides to pass any adverse order, they shall be given due notice and they shall be heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners is satisfied with the statement made and does not want to press this petition for the present which is disposed of as such."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:
(i) Vide order dated 22-12-1994, the Education Minister had constituted a Scrutiny Committee for examining the regularisation or otherwise of the petitioners and according to him petitioners' services were regularised and formal orders issued, therefore, defect if any, in their initial appointment stood cured.
(ii) That the appointment of the petitioners having been regularised in 1995, the authorities were not left with any locus poenitentiae to terminate the appointments. Reliance was placed on Chairman, Minimum Wage Board Peshawar and another v. Fayyaz Khattak 1999 SCMR 1004 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Mansehra and 3 others 2000 PLC (C.S.)
803.
(iii) That the petitioners are being discriminated against because a number of officials appointed in the Punjab Text Book Board in a like manner i,e, without advertisement and without going through the process of selection have been spared.
(iv) That the petitioners were fully eligible and qualified and were appointed under the orders passed by the competent authority under the directives of the Education Minister who was the Controlling Authority. It could not, therefore, be said that these appointments were made as a result of political interference and, therefore, for the lapse, if any, of the competent authority, the petitioners should not be made to suffer.
5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General, Punjab submits that the petitioners were appointed under the orders of the Educational Minister contrary to Punjab Text Book Board Employees Service Regulations, 1981 as the vacancies had neither been advertised nor the petitioners went through the process of selection through the appropriate committee. The basic appointment being ab initio, void even the regularisation will not cure the defect. In any case, according to him, no case was made out for blessing such appointments with sanctity in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. He next submits that writ petitions were not maintainable against a show-cause notice. He contended that the petitioners should submit replies to the show- cause notices and raise all pleas of law and fact for consideration of the competent authority. He further stated that this Court could indicate even guidelines for the competent authority to proceed further in the matter. Reliance was placed on Shagufta Begum v. The Income-Tax Officer, PLD 1989 SC 360; Nazir Ahmad Sheikh v. Government of Sindh through Secretary 1998 PLC (C.S.)
607; Shabbir Ahmad v. Director, Agriculture and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1213; M. Zafar Abbas v.
Commissioner and others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 931; Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khoso v. Branch Manager, National Bank of Pakistan 2000 SCMR 1017 and Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others 1993 SCMR 1287.
6. Raja Muhammad Arif, Advocate, appearing for the Punjab Text Book Board besides adopting the arguments of the learned Advocate-General, Punjab has submitted that 77 persons were appointed under the order of the Education Minister for a period of six months out of which 7 employees tendered their resignation, services of 16 employees were terminated, one official was reverted while 53 officials are still working out of which 47 officials are before this Court in the two writ petitions. He submits that all these 53 officials were being proceeded against and, therefore, the plea of discrimination being raised by the petitioners has in fact no basis. He next submits that since the orders of appointment were void, the authorities concerned had the necessary power to recall the orders of appointment. Reliance was placed on The Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 and Messrs Vulcan Company (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and others PLD 2000 Lahore 253. He further contended that the Scrutiny Committee was constituted by the Minister to cover up his illegal action, it had otherwise no sanctity in law.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted facts which emerge are that initially the petitioners were appointed for six months under the orders of the Education Minister without following the prescribed procedure. This is also an admitted fact that a scrutiny committee was constituted by the Education Minister. The said Scrutiny Committee in its meeting held on 7-6-1995 recommended regularisation of the services of 34 officials and the case of 14 officials was deferred. However, the fact remains that no adverse orders have been passed against the petitioners and they have been called up to show cause against the proposed action. There is ample judicial authority that a writ petition is not generally maintainable against a show-cause notice. The rationale being that departmental authorities had yet to pass a final order after considering the matter in the light of the reply.
8. For the order proposed to be made, I am not inclined to examine the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the controversy lest any prejudice is caused to either of the parties. The petitioners should submit replies to the show-cause notices. They will be at liberty to raise all questions of law and fact before the competent authority including the deliberations of the Scrutiny Committee, their recommendations and formal orders issued on the basis thereof regularising services of a number of officials of the Board. The competent authority shall duly consider all the pleas of law and fact of the petitioners taken in the replies to show-cause notices, if filed by the petitioners and dispose of the matter with a speaking order.
9. For what has been stated above, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed subject to above observation.