Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. KALSOOM MAQBOOL VS Respondent: SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1118
[Punjab Service Tribunal]
Before Justice (Retd.) Riaz Kayani, Chairman
Mst. KALSOOM MAQBOOL
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents
Appeal No. 2406 of 2001, decided on 9th February, 2002
(a) Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Transfer of lady teacher‑‑‑Criteria‑‑‑Factors to be determined fox transfer of a lady teacher to a nearer place are place of her residence from institution in which she taught; service rendered in far flug area; wedlock status and seniority and academic results.
(b) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 18(1)(o)‑‑‑Punjab District Government Rules of Business, 2001, R.16‑‑Pronition, posting and transfer‑‑‑Power of Zila Nazim‑‑‑Scope‑‑ Provisions of S.18(1)(o) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, no doubt had empowered Zila Nazim to issue. orders to District Coordination Officer and Executive ‑‑‑Zila Nazim would act as a Supervisor and to monitor work so that functions were correctly performed by employees and one Authority did hot interfere in work of another Authority, but by no stretch of imagination it would mean that Zila Nazim had been given powers to sweap on functions and working of different Departments with which he otherwise, had no nexus or' expertise ‑‑‑Zila Nazim, in exercise of his supervisory powers had just to ensure himself that every thing was going right, but he could not correct a wrong by his .interference, specially in, matters of promotion, posting and transfer of civil servants.
Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Appellant.
Khadim Hussain Sindhu, District Attorney and Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa for Respondent No.9.
Date of hearing: 6th February; 2002.
JUDGMENT
Appellant, Mst. Kalsoom Maqbool, a P.T.C. teacher has called in question order dated 3‑10‑2001 passed by Deputy District Education Officer (W), Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal and that of Executive District Officer (Education), Narowal dated 12‑11‑2001 declining to interfere with the orders of respondent No.5 in appeal and also orders dated 20‑11‑2001 passed in consequence of the orders dated 12‑1 I‑2001.
2. Under the aegis of Education Department en bloc transfers were to be made in Tehsil Shakargarh in consequence of which a merit list were prepared to make transfers strictly in accordance with the transfer policy in vogue in the Punjab Education Department. Amongst other factors place of residence of the teachers from the institution in which she taught, service rendered in far flung area, wedlock policy, seniority and academic results were factors which determined the criteria to get transfer to the nearest place of teaching from the residence of the respective teachers. As a result of this policy a merit list was prepared on 10‑8‑2001 by Deputy District Education Officer (W), Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal along-with another educationist. In the first instance the contest was between appellant and one Tehira Yasmin also a P.T.C. teacher. Since appellant secured 60 marks as compared to Tehira Yasmin who got 40 marks, appellant was transferred from Government Girls Primary School, Lalian to Government Girls Primary School, Pandori Fazal on 21‑8‑2001 by Deputy District Education Officer (W), Tehsil Shakargarh arrayed in this appeal as respondent No.5. It is stated that appellant assumed the charge at the Institution where she was transferred but soon thereafter on 5‑9‑2001 the transfer orders dated 21‑8‑2001 were cancelled/withdrawn with immediate effect. Appellant filed departmental representation against the cancellation order of a transfer which met with success and vide order dated 10‑9‑2001 passed by respondent No.5 she was once again posted at her school where she was transferred on 21‑8‑2001. Appellants euphoria was short‑lived because of a so‑called general order issued on 29‑8‑2001 all transfer orders issued after 17‑8‑200, were cancelled by respondent No. 6. statedly on the verbal orders dated 28‑8‑2001 of District Nazim Narowal. As a result of this general order appellant's orders of transfer to Government Girls Primary School, Pandori Fazal, Tehsil Shakargarh also stood cancelled and she was directed to report for duty at her previous place of positing i.e. Government Girls Primary School, Lalian. Appellant lost no time in making representation to respondent No.6, which as stated earlier, was declined on 12‑11‑2001. All these orders going against the appellant have been impeached in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant lambasted the impugned orders stating that the same were passed at the behest of District Nazim, Narowal arrayed as respondent No.3 motivated to help the husband of respondent No.9,,Riffat Begum as he was a Councillor working under District Nazim, Narowal, a ground specifically taken in his memo. of appeal. Learned counsel taking his arguments to its logical conclusion, it was asserted that District Nazim, does not figure in the scheme of the working of the Education Department, therefore, orders dated 29‑8‑2001 passed on the.
5. Learned District Attorney on the other hand candidly submitted that Zila Nazim has no right whatsoever to interfere in the matters of transfer in the Education Institutions in his District, which was the headache of respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6 and expressed his inability to support orders dated 29‑8‑2001.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
7. I do not subscribe to the arguments raised by respondent No.9 particularly by enlarging powers of Zila Nazim so as to interfere in the work of other departments. Section 18 (1), clause (o), no doubt empowers the Zila Nazim to issue orders to District Coordination Officer and Executive District Officer for the discharge of the functions decentralized to the District Government. This means Zila Nazim shall inform the District Co‑ordination Officer and the Executive District Officer as to what are their powers under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2002), as a result of the new set‑up and further shall ensure that the functions assigned to the above named officers are duly performed but there is no overlapping. In other words he will act as a supervisor and montior the work so that functions are correctly performed and one authority does not interfere in the work of another authority but by no stretch of imagination it means that Zila Nazim has been given powers to swoop on the functions and working of different departments with which otherwise he has no nexus or expertise. In the exercise of his supervisory powers he has just to ensure himself that every thing is going right but he cannot correct a wrong by his interference, specifically in matters of promotion, posting and transfers. If we allow such functions to be performed by Zila Nazim then there is no difference between the interference of MNAs and MPAs, scourge which we got rid of in the recent past. Working of each and every department whether at Provincial level, District level or Union level is well‑defined and no interference can be made or allowed by the Courts by an outside agency. The logic behind this restraint is well known, main factor for the policy is not to allow brow beating exercise at the behest of the favourites on the officers empowered to exercise function in their respective departments. It is for this reason that learned District Attorney was not able to support the order dated 29‑8‑2001 and that also a verbal order which has no significance in the eyes of law. It was expected of respondent No.6 to stand up and resist the order by refusing interference in his functions.
8. Order passed in appeal dated 12‑11‑2001 by respondent No.6 also leaves much to be desired as the factual controversy set up by the parties regarding their place of residence and place of distance from their houses to Government Girls Primary School, Pandori Fazal had to be resolved through a fact finding impartial inquiry and thereafter had to be incorporated in the order passed by him now in appeal before me. Both the parties were adamant regarding place of residence of the appellant, and this controversial issue could not be resolved through the aforesaid inquiry. As regards, service rendered in a farthing area it was another factor to be kept in mind and that was to be ascertained by proper evidence.
9. The specific plea taken by the appellant in para. 11 that respondent No.9 is the spouse of a Local Councillor working under the Zila Nazim has not been denied by respondent No.9 in her reply. This fact coupled with interference by the Zila Nazim through his verbal orders to respondent No.3 resulting in order dated 29‑8‑2001 has created doubts in my mind that the transfers were not caused strictly in accordance with merit particularly when respondent No.9, to her convenience, forgot to mention relevant details in her application to the concerned authorities for including her name in the transfers merit. Order dated 29‑8‑2001 to my mind is the cause of the mischief as such it cannot be allowed to remain intact and is hereby set aside along with other orders impugned by accepting the appeal. Resultantly, respondent No.6 shall once again hear that case but with a total independent mind he will get a fact‑finding inquiry conducted by the Deputy District Education Officer (W), Shakargarh as consented by the appellant and respondent No.9 for (a) determining the place of residence of each teacher, (b) distance of residence from Lalian School as well as Pandori Fazal School, (c) length of service rendered by both in farflung area, (d) wedlock policy (e) seniority and (f) results in the subject taught by both the appellant and respondent No.9. This exercise shall be got completed within two months from the date respondent No.6 receives the order either officially or delivered to him by anyone of the parties where after he shall now dispose of the matter through a speaking order.
H.B.T/79/PST Appeal accepted.