' In this Constitutional petition Muhammad Zafar Iqbal son of Feroze Din has alleged that he was serving as S.V. Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Gaggo, District Vehari; that he was selected as SST (Biology) and formal posting order in. That behalf was issued on 27-4-1995; that he served on that post for only about 1-1/2 months when vide order, dated 13-6-1995 the Director Secondary Education, Multan Division, Multan (respondent) withdrew the petitioner's said appointment unlawfully, without notice, without assigning any reason, against the principles of natural justice and with mala fide intention. It was prayed that the said order be declared as unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Report and parawise comments of the respondent were called wherein he stated that for the post of SST (Biology), requisite qualification of a candidate is BSc. Or B.S.Ed. In the subject of Botany and Zoology. The petitioner was selected against in service quota according to the list of candidates prepared by D.E.O., Vehari wherein subjects of the petitioner were shown as Botany and Zoology in B.S.Ed. On complaint made by another candidate that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and as such was not eligible for appointment as SST (Biology), an inquiry was held wherein it was found that the petitioner did not pass the B.S.Ed. Examination in Botany and Zoology, neither he had the subject of Biology in F.Sc. He was summoned in the Directorate on 13-6- 1995 alongwith original/professional certificates for personal hearing and the certificates produced by him were found incorrect. He was given personal hearing during which he also gave a statement accepting his qualification as B.S.Ed. In double Maths and Physics instead of Chemistry, Zoology and Botany. As he did not possess the requisite qualification i,e, B.Sc. Or B.S.Ed. In Biology his appointment which was made on the basis of incorrect information was accordingly withdrawn as he was not competent to teach the subject of Biology.
3. A legal objection was also raised that the matter agitated in the writ petition relates to the terms and conditions of service and falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as that of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that case of the petitioner is covered under section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), which provides that "no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade". According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this case, therefore, did not fall within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal.
6. According to the appointment letter Annexure "A" writ petitioner was appointed on temporary capacity against certain terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. Condition No,2 is that appointment is purely temporary and liable to termination at any time without any notice if errors are found in the particulars of the appointee at any later stage.
7. As observed hereinbefore, writ petitioner did not furnish correct particulars. He has claimed to have passed B.S.Ed. In the subject of Biology (which was the requisite qualification for the post), but during inquiry it transpired ,that he was B.S.Ed. But not in the subject of Biology, therefore, his appointment was withdrawn. Matters relating to appointment or withdrawal of appointment, pertain to terms and conditions of service and a dispute with regard thereto falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution. Writ petition is, therefore, not competent. It is accordingly dismissed.