Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAZIA ABBAS VS Respondent: DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), RAWALPINDI
1993 P L C (C
1993 P L C (C.S.) 1621
[Lahore High Court]
Before Mian Ghulam Ahmad, J
SHAZIA ABBAS
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), RAWALPINDI and 2 others
Writ Petition No. 913 of 1993, decided on 1st September, 1993.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Withdrawal of civil servant's appointment order‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's appointment order was withdrawn on the ground that on verification, one of the certificates produced by her was found to be spurious‑‑‑Petitioner assailing order in question, could not explain as to how the Appointing Authority was divested of powers to make any consequential order, after having made a probe into the appointee's testimonials and credentials and how they were debarred from examining genuineness of a particular certificate tendered by her, entitling her to such appointment‑‑‑Petitioner, however, should have been associated with such inquiry and granted opportunity of hearing before making a final determination , about fictitious or spurious character of one of her testimonials‑‑‑Petitioner being still in probation phase, her services could be terminated without a notice‑‑‑Petitioner's grievance being relatable to service matter, only course open to her was to have approached Service Tribunal for redressal of her grievance‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not maintainable in service matters under Art. 212 of the Constitution.
Khalid Iqbal Qazi for Petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner got appointment as PTC teacher on 18‑7‑1989, but the appointment was cancelled after some time. Subsequently on 17‑5‑1993 again she claims to have been selected on merit for appointment as PTC teacher. She joined her duty in the Government Girls Primary School, Dalhaiter on 29‑5‑1993. On 7‑8‑1993, however, the appointment order was withdrawn, with the observation that on verification the sports certificate produced by her had been found to be spurious. .
2. It is pleaded by the petitioner that after she had joined service, there vested no authority in her superiors, the respondents, to recall the order of appointment. The learned counsel has not been able to explain as to how was the appointing authority divested of the powers to make any consequential order, after having made a probe into the appointee's testimonials and credentials and how were they debarred from examining the genuineness of a particular certificate tendered by her, entitling her to such appointment. She should, of course, have been associated with such an inquiry and granted an opportunity of hearing before making a final determination about fictitious or spurious character of one of her testimonials. Probably, she was sill in probation phase, where her services could be terminated without a notice even.
3. Anyhow, this being clearly a service matter, the only course open to the petitioner was to have approached the Service Tribunal for redress of her grievances. Under Article 212 of the Constitution, writ petition is not' A maintainable. The same is dismissed in limine.
AA./S‑360/L Petition dismissed.