' Mst. Anees Aziz, passed her Matriculation Examination in the year 1990 and also successfully completed P.T.C. Course/Examination in the year 1992. In order to meet the immediate needs of the World Bank who had funded amount for 7000 vacant posts of P.T.C. Teachers for the year 1990, it was decided by the Government that untrained matriculate candidates be appointed as P.T.C.
Teachers immediately till trained teachers are available. In consequence of this directive, the Government geared up its resources and appointed candidates who were matriculate as P.T.C.
Teachers with the direction either to improve their qualifications or continue till such time as qualified teachers are available. It is in this back drop that the appellant was recommended by Minister for Education for appointment as P.T.C. Teacher, as a result of which she was selected in BPS-7 by respondent No,2 on 3rd June, 1990. It is stated that her post was regularized when she successfully completed her P.T.C. Examination in IInd Division from Directorate of Education (Schools), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, on 5th September, 1995. Learned counsel emphasises that the appellant was performing her duties diligently, and to her best of ability when to her utter surprise she was served with a show-cause notice dated 13th August, 1998, asking her to show cause as to why her service be not done away with on the grounds that her appointment was recommended by Minister for Education by relaxing rules which he could not do so and being untrained teacher, it was against procedure to be appointed by District Education Officer to the said post. This notice was followed by yet another show-cause notice dated 30-11-199$ terming the appointment as incorrect and fake and asking her to submit her reply within the stipulated period.
The reply having been submitted, she was heard by respondent No,2 and not agreeing with the view-point of the appellant, she was removed from service by respondent No,2 on 10-4-1999. This order was assailed in appeal and the same authority i,e, respondent No,2 on 12-6-1999 reviewed the order of removal on the ground that subsequently the appellant improved her qualification as required for regular P.T.C. Teacher and allowed her to continue in service with effect from the date of her termination.
2. Through an omnibus order once again respondent No,1 reviewed previous appointments which according to him were fake, doubtful and without authority and mandated that P.T.C. Teachers found to be appointed in the manner indicated, should be forthwith removed/dismissed from service.
3. Appellant has challenged the order of removal referred to above dated 10th July, 1999.
4. Appellant earlier assailed the oral order of relieving her from the post in pursuance of the general order, dated 10-7-1999 by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No,5960(BWP) of 1999 which petition was disposed of on 30th June, 2000 by a Hon'ble Judge of the Lahore High Court with, the direction to the appellant to seek redress from the competent forum as jurisdiction of the High Court was barred to look into the terms and conditions of civil servant under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant emphatically contended that he has knocked the door of this Tribunal within time after having been conveyed oral order that he has not to attend her duties having been deemed to be removed from service vide order, dated 10th July, 1999, impugned in this appeal. It was further submitted that having been regularized by the Education Department, they could not turn back to say that her appointment is irregular and in relaxation of rules as the department itself decided to appoint untrained teacher so as to utilize the amount placed the disposal of the department by the World Bank to remove the scourge of illiteracy from the country.
It was next submitted that omnibus order, dated 10-7-1999 is patently illegal and offends principles of natural justice without providing her an opportunity to prove her case that she was eligible in all respects to continue as P.T.C. Teacher.
6. Learned District Attorney admits that the appellant was qualified to hold the post of P,T.C.
Teacher and also states that on factual plane that no notice of hearing or opportunity was provided to the appellant in pursuance of order, dated 10-7-1999 passed by respondent No, 1.
7. I have considered the arguments of the respective counsel and also gone through the record.
Appointments of untrained teachers were made by way of general policy, referred in the preceding paragraphs, and I need not repeat them. It was in pursuance of the said policy that the appellant was appointed as. P.T.C. Teacher. However, she qualified for the regular post by improving her qualification subsequently and accordingly was regularized in the post. To add fuel to the fire, her order of termination which is perfunctory in nature was recalled, strangely enough by the same authority on 12-6-1999 having realized the blunder it had committed. The sword of democles finally fell on 10-7-1999 by omnibus order directing the termination of all such teachers who were appointed through fake certificate or by relaxation of rules. No opportunity, admittedly, was provided to the appellant to prove her appointment in the first instance was made in pursuance of the general policy and secondly by dint of her hardwork she qualified to be regularized in her post.
Appellant has been condemned unheard and principle of equity as enshrined in the principle of audi alteram partem stand grossly violated. If appointment was made by the authority otherwise competent to do so, the fault lay with the Education Department and the appellant could not be blamed for it and when decisive steps were taken they could not be retraced. I am fortified in my views by the judgment of my predecessor in Service Appeal No,2473 of 1999 which is on all fours with the facts of the present appeal.
8. Upshot of the discussion is that accept the appeal, reinstate the appellant in service with all back benefits without passing any order as to costs.