' Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration of impugned order of termination to be illegal, void ab initio and liable to be set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in response to the advertisement in the National Newspapers the petitioner applied for the post of EST./S.V./PET/DM Teacher and petitioner was appointed as such.
Subsequently her services were terminated under the garb of orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No,2599 of 1993 filed by respondent No,3 District Education Officer, (M) Sargodha.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by respondent No,3 is illegal and unlawful. She relies upon the judgment passed in Writ Petition No,11629 of 1993 on 7-9-1993 by which the termination order of that writ petitioner was set aside in view of the earlier order passed in Writ Petition No,2599 of 1993 vide judgment dated 14-4-1993 and the case was remanded to the competent Authority to pass the order after hearing the petitioner.
4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. I am astonished that no order of termination has been attached with this writ petition. Only two Annexures have been appended. Annexure (A) is appointment order of the petitioner and the Annexure (B) is Order dated 11-7-1993 bearing No,14387/DEO, passed by D.E.O. (Women) Elementary Education, Sargodha. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, and without affording any opportunity to him.
5. However, I have noticed that some order has been subsequently attached with this Petition passed on 5-8-1993 bearing No,153017 by the District Education Officer (Women) Elementary Education Sargodha, in which it has been mentioned that subsequent upon the decision of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,2599 of 1993 of Saiqa Khanum v. Government of the Punjab dated 17-3-1993 and 21-3-1993, services of the petitioner have been terminated. In the comments the Department has denied that termination order dated 5-8-1993 has been passed Without issuance of show-cause notice. The department has stated so in para.B of the ground taken in this writ petition, which is reproduced as under:-- "(b) That no show-cause notice has been served on the petitioner before issuing the orders of termination. It is just equal to condemnation before hearing which is against all canons of justice."
' It has further been stated by the D.E.O. That the appointment of the petitioner was without merits, therefore, her services were terminated because she did not fulfil the qualification for the post of .T and A.T. However, the stance has been taken that there is bar of jurisdiction for entertaining this petition under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. I have perused the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner which has not been decided on merits and has been decided on the confessional statement of the learned Addl.A.-G. Which is reproduced as under:- "7. Mr. Farooq Badar, learned Addl. A.-G. Has conceded this legal position and has made a statement, after obtaining instructions from the Secretary, Education, that this is a fit case which may be remanded to the District. Education Officer/competent Authority so that the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question should be scrutinized afresh in his presence, strictly on the basis of seniority list already prepared in this regard.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service. The competent Authority shall summon the petitioner and pass a speaking order in the matter of her appointment, exclusively on the basis of merit list already prepared by the Department. Needless to add that in, case it is found that the petitioner does not fall within the merit list, she shall not be entitled to continue in service and formal termination order would be passed by the competent authority in this behalf. The matter shall be decided within a period of two weeks positively.
(Sd.)
Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Judge
7. Bare perusal of the judgment shows that this judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as no such conceding statement has been made in the case of the petitioner rather the department has opposed acceptance of the writ petition on the ground that there is a bar under Article 212 of the Constitution, 1973 for entertaining the petition against termination of the civil servant and the orders relating to terms and conditions of the civil servant.
Now it is well-settled law that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter which relates to the terms and conditions of civil servant. Termination order was passed by the department and remedy was available to her by way of filing representation and then appeal before the Service Tribunal. This writ petition is not maintainable. Hence the same is dismissed.