Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS Respondent: THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), RAHIMYAR KHANHonorable Justice Muhammad Munir KhanMalik Sajid Feroz,Shaheen Masood Rim
1989 P L C (C
1989 P L C (C.S.) 677
[Lahore High Court]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL
Versus
THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), RAHIMYAR KHAN and 2 others
Writ Petitions Nos. 803, 804, 835 and 768 of 1989/BWP, heard on 8th July, 1989.
Civil service‑‑
‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑Services terminated on the advice of Minister of the department‑‑Authority did not apply its independent mind, while terminating services‑‑Legality‑‑Authority had not applied its mind independently to the question of termination of services of employee and had virtually obeyed the directions given by the Minister, who was not an Authority for the termination of services‑‑Order of termination also seemed to be arbitrary one, because all appointments made of Class IV employees or other employees in B.S. 1 on or, after 1‑1‑1989 in the educational institutions, (Primary/Middle/High Schools) to which category of service, petitioners belonged, had simultaneously and arbitrarily been terminated/cancelled without examining the case of the individual employee‑‑Order of termination of services, passed by the Authority was thus declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Malik Sajid Feroz for Appellant.
Shaheen Masood Rim, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th July, 1989.
JUDGMENT
As identical questions of law and facts are involved in the four Writ Petitions Nos. 803 of 1989 filed by Muhammad Afzal, 8114 of 1989 by Muhammad Arshad, 835 of 1989 by Mukhtar Ali and 768 of 1989 by Ashiq Hussain petitioners, so I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. The facts leading to these petitions briefly are that the aforesaid petitioners are class‑IV employees in Education Department. District Education Officer, respondent No.1 terminated/cancelled the services/appointments of Muhammad Afzal on 28‑1‑1989, Muhammad Arshad on 28‑2‑1989, Mukhtar Ali on 1‑3‑1989 and of Ashiq Hussain on 28‑5‑1989, hence these petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the services of the petitioners have illegally been terminated because the District Education Officer, respondent No. 1 has not applied his/her independent mind and has simply obeyed the orders of the Education Minister, Government of the Punjab, Learned A.A.‑t a. has half heartedly supported the impugned orders.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the District Education Officer, respondent No. 1 has not passed an independent order. He/ 'she has not applied his/her own mind to the question of termination of the services of the petitioners or of the cancellation of their appointments and has virtually obeyed the direction given by Minister for Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, who was not an Authority for the termination of the services/cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners. Furthermore, the impugned order seems to be arbitrary one; because all appointments made of Class‑IV servants or other employees in BS‑1 A on or after 1‑1‑1989 in the educational institutions (primary/middle/high schools) have simultaneously and arbitrarily been terminated/cancelled without examining the case of the individual employee.
Pursuant to the above discussion, the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties will bear their own costs.
A.A./M‑1459/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions accepted.