ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO

Constt: Petition No.D-88/2018

Constt: Petition No.D-116/2020

Constt: Petition No.D-91/2020

Constt: Petition No.D-161/2021

Constt: Petition No.D-54/2022

(Abdul Rasool alias Farooque Ahmed & Ors.

v/s. D.E.O (Primary) & Ors.

Date

Order with signature of Judge

Before:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar,

Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro,

Petitioners: Through M/s. Habibullah Ghouri, Ali Azhar Tunio and

Muhammad Ashique Dhamraho, Advocates.

Respondents: Through Mr. Liaqat Ali Shar, Additional Advocate General,

Sindh a/w Liaquat Ali Naich, District Education Officer (Primary) Dadu.

Date of hearing: 23-04-2025

Date of Judgment: 30-04-2025

ORDER

Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro J.-We propose to decide the fate of captioned petitions through this common order as all the petitions involve a common question of appointment of Primary School Teachers (PST) in School Education Department District Dadu. Petitioners through instant petitions seek indulgence of this court to direct the respondents to implement the office order dated 17-01-2018 and 26-01-2018 issued by District Education Officer Primary Dadu, wherein Petitioners were reinstated in service and directed to join respective schools.

2. The case of petitioners is that they were appointed as Primary School Teachers in year 2012 after adopting a due process of law pursuant to an advertisement published in year 2007. Respondents did not implement appointment orders, giving cause to Petitioners for filing Constitutional Petition No.D-210/2012 and others before this Court. The said Petitions were disposed of through a common order dated 16-01-2013 with directions to School Education and Literacy Department to scrutinize the cases of petitioners in accordance with law by constituting Scrutiny Committee. Petitioners were directed to submit their recruitment record before Scrutiny Committee. Per Petitioners they submitted record before Scrutiny Committee, upon final scrutiny the appointment orders of Petitioners were found genuine, they were directed to join duties in different Schools by the then District Education Officer (Primary) Dadu through separate orders but remained unsuccessful to seek implementation of orders hence filed this petition.

3. On notices, Respondents No.1 to 3 filed replies in which they stated that in terms of order dated 16.01.2013 passed by this court in Constitutional Petition No.D210/2012 and others, Petitioners were directed to submit their recruitment record before Scrutiny Committee but they failed to submit required documents viz. copy of advertisement, recommendation of concerned District Recruitment Committee (DRC), Admit Card and original copies of offer and appointment orders. It is further stated that School Education and Literacy Department had issued a letter dated 30-09-2008, addressed to all Executive District Officers Education of Province directing them to release salaries of all appointees whose appointments orders were issued prior to 19-11-2007 and beyond said date all the appointments were fake.

4. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, advocate advanced arguments on behalf of Petitioners in C.P.No.D-88 of 2018. Learned Counsel for Petitioners in other Constitution Petitions adopted his arguments. Learned Counsel contended that Petitioners were given appointment orders in year 2012 but they were not taken into service. They filed representation before department but remained unheeded, therefore, filed petition No.210/2012 and others before this court which were disposed of through a common order dated 16-01-2013 with directions to School Education Department to scrutinize the cases of petitioners in accordance with law. He contended that petitioners were called by the committee constituted by Secretary School Education Department wherein they appeared and furnished entire record. The appointment orders of Petitioners were found genuine, pursuant thereto District Education Officer (Primary) Dadu, issued orders dated 17-01-2018 and 26-01-2018 directing petitioners to join respective primary schools. He contended that orders of District Education Officer Dadu were not implemented; petitioners were not allowed joining and since last more than 13 years they are before court pursuing their rights. They prayed for allowing the petition, directing respondents to take petitioners in service and pay them all back benefits.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed the petitions, he contended that petitioners filed earlier petitions which were disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2013. He contended that in compliance of court orders Education Department constituted a scrutiny committee, petitioners were called by Committee and directed to submit recruitment record but they furnished only photostat copy of Offer Letters. Committee scrutinized the appointment record of Petitioners which were found fake, fabricated and managed. He contended that petition suffers from laches, barred under the principle of Res Judicata, hence not maintainable. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused material available on record.

7. Perusal of record transpired that in year 2007 School Education Department issued an advertisement for recruitment of teachers by way of conducting recruitment test through Sukkur Institute of Business Administration across Sindh. Per claim of Petitioners, they participated in the recruitment test, remained successful and were issued appointment orders which were not implemented, therefore they filed CP No.D-210, 211, 254, 255, 312, 337, 427, 472, 490, 491, 508, 759, 850, 993, 994, 1075, 1079, 1081, 1115, 1137, 1145, 1176, 1192, 1226, 1240, 1278, 1315, 1335, 1401 and 1425 of year 2012 before this Court which were disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2013 with directions to department to scrutinize appointment orders of Petitioners in terms of the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in petition No.10-K to 16-K of 2011. In compliance of the Order passed by this Court, Education Department constituted Scrutiny Committee. Petitioners were called by the Scrutiny Committee to submit their recruitment record viz. copy of advertisement inviting applications for recruitment in the year 2007, admit cards to prove that they appeared in recruitment test conducted by IBA Sukkur, result showing that they passed recruitment test, recommendation of DRC, original offer and appointment orders and physical fitness certificate issued by the concerned medical superintendent. Petitioners only submitted photostat copies of offer orders and failed to submit remaining record required by Scrutiny Committee. The appointment orders of Petitioners were declared fake and fabricated by the Department based upon scrutiny report. Petitioners did not challenge the report of Scrutiny Committee before appropriate forum instead filed these petitions, relying upon the orders dated 17-01-2018 and 26-01-2018, wherein they were directed to join duties in different schools. The Petitioners filed this petition on the basis of office orders dated 17-01-2018 and 26-01-2018 issued by District Education Officer (Primary) Dadu. Per claim of the Petitioners these office orders were issued after the report of Scrutiny Committee constituted pursuant to orders of this Court and were in continuation to appointment orders issued in year 2012. The Office Order dated 17.01.2018 and 26.01.2018 reads as under:

“OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER PRIMARY M/F DADU

DEO/PRY/DU/ADMN/NO 39 Dated: 17/01/2018

OFFICE ORDER

In pursuance the Honorable High Court Larkana passed order dated 19.10.2017 the Secretary Education vide notification No dated: 25.09.2017 in compliance, the scrutinize documents of Petitioners found correct and eligible for the Post of PST.

Then Executive District Officer Dadu issue offer letter Abdul Rasool son of Abdul Jabbar Depar CNIC No 41205-2715674-1 Petitioner CPD No 279 of 2012 is hereby reinstated in service as PST BS – 09 at Government Boys Primary School Syed Jo Goth Taluka Mehar District Dadu without back benefit. Till further order.

Sd/

District Education Officer

Primary M/F Dadu

(contains stamp in the name of

Abdul Aziz Chachar)”

8. The Education Department has denied issuance of such orders with a categorical stance that office orders dated 17.01.2018 and 26.01.2018 were fake and fabricated and no official record relating to these orders was available in the concerned office. Respondent No 1 in its reply has stated that Education Department Government of Sindh on receiving information of referred orders, issued a letter dated 19.02.2018 wherein Director School Education (Primary / ES & HS) Hyderabad was intimated that all the appointment orders issued by Mr. Abdul Aziz Chachar were cancelled. Office letter dated 19.02.2018 reads as under:

S.O (JUD-II)EDU/MISC/2018

Government of Sindh

School Education Department

Karachi dated 19^th February 2018

The Director School Education

(Primary / ES & HS) Hyderabad

I am directed to refer to the subject noted above and all appointment orders issued by Mr. Aziz Chachar, District Education Officer (Primary) Male / Female Dadu are hereby cancelled. It is therefore appraised to implement the orders and furnish detailed report for perusal of Worthy Secretary School Education & Literacy Department.

This may be treated as most urgent.

Sd/

Athar Nawaz Durrani

Section Officer Judicial

For Secretary to Govt. of Sindh

9. We have carefully examined the record in all petitions, Petitioners have not submitted any document with petition excepting the office orders dated 17.01.2018 and 26.01.2018.Secretary School Education Department in its reply asserted that in recruitment test conducted by IBA Sukkur in year 2007, only 547 candidates remained successful for the post of PST in District Dadu and all of them were issued appointment orders, the Petitioners were failure candidates and their appointment letters were fake and fabricated. When confronted with this factual position, Petitioners failed to dispel this assertion of Education Department by furnishing any record to establish that they were successful candidates. Petitioners were burdened to prove their case through undeniable evidence that their appointment orders in year 2012 and joining letters of year 2018 were genuine, they were deprived of their right to appointment by making recruitment of blue-eyed candidates and recruitment process lacked transparency and appointment of other candidates was done under extraneous considerations by slaughtering the merits but they failed, which lends support to the stance taken by department regarding genuineness of their appointment orders.

10. Petitioners did not challenge office order dated 19.02.2018 supra rather insisted to get joining on the basis of an order which stood cancelled by higher authority. Perusal of Order dated 17.01.2018 and 26.01.2018 transpired that through the said Orders services of Petitioners were reinstated. It is never claimed by the Petitioners that their services were ever terminated, thus question of reinstatement did not arise. The orders dated 17.01.2018 and 26.01.2018 thus appear to be doubtful. The case of the petitioners involves factual controversy which requires evidence, this Court under its writ jurisdiction cannot embark upon to resolve this controversy by undertaking the exercise of recording evidence.

11. This view finds support from the dicta of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down in the case of Waqar Ahmed and others Versus the Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others reported in 2024 S C M R 1877, wherein it has been held as under:

The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), is destined to dispense with an expeditious remedy in cases where the illegality or impropriety of an impugned action can be established without any exhaustive inquisition or recording of evidence, but if some convoluted or disputed question of facts are involved, the adjudication of which can only be determined by the Courts of plenary jurisdiction after recording evidence of the parties, then incontrovertibly the High Court cannot embark on such factual controversy.

12. The Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 (APT) being the governing laws for appointment in Civil Service in province of Sindh empower administrative department to determine methods, qualification for recruitment in public service in terms of rule 3 of APT. The appointment process commences with issuance of advertisement inviting applications for recruitment, submission of applications, conduct of recruitment test, scrutiny of the credentials, interview by DRC, recommendation of DRC. Once DRC recommends a candidate for appointment, the department issues offer order for appointment, which follows physical fitness verification by authorized Medical Officer and issuance of appointment order. Petitioners have failed to place on record any of the above documents to substantiate their claim that they participated in recruitment test, remained successful and were called by DRC for interview. Issuance of letter for appointment by an officer whose genuineness is questioned cannot create a right in favor of Petitioners to allow them joining.

13. Recruitment in public service is purely an internal affair of the department and institutional independence requires that appointment process should not be interfered with by the Courts, if the department maintains transparency and merit in the recruitment process. In cases where appointment process lacks transparency, marred by corruption and extraneous considerations or contravenes any provision of law and rules, such process would not sustain. The appointment in public service is not a vested right but lack of transparency would amount to offend the fundamental rights of individuals guaranteed under articles 4, 9, 25 and 27 of the Constitution. To ensure good governance, adherence to a credible, high standard and transparent selection process is essential. Choosing persons for appointment to service in education department is not just a job giving process but it is a sacred trust vested in the authority and needs to be discharged diligently and honestly leaving no room for non-meritorious persons to join education department which is pivotal for national development.

14. Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ayaz othersVersusMustafa Saeed and others reported in 2025 SCMR 216 laying emphasis on transparency in recruitment in public service has held as under:

“The purpose of holding any examination by the SPSC is to select and choose the most deserving and competent candidates. The wrong selection of "blue-eyed" candidates, based on nepotism, favoritism, or external pressures, leads to chaos and turmoil in the civil service structure, creating unrest and discontent among civil servants with serious repercussions. In all fairness, merit should be the sole criterion in the selection process, as it is an integral part of good governance. A lack of transparency or preferential treatment of undeserving candidates in the appointment process amounts to a brutal murder of merit and excellence. The appointment process must be transparent, ensuring that only competent individuals are allowed to serve, rather than those who are incompetent and unskilled. The menace of favoritism, nepotism, and preferential treatment in the appointment process of civil servants is always considered pernicious and devastating. The utmost compelling advantage of transparency in recruitment is that it essentially ratifies and disseminates public confidence in the impartiality of the process and authenticates that the appointments are not manipulated or a sham. A transparent recruiting process should be marked by unambiguity, uprightness, trustworthiness, and evenhandedness. Honesty and integrity are the best means to magnetize talented individuals suited for the job, and an open-minded selection process should be based on objective criteria free from any extraneous considerations, while providing every candidate with a fair and equal opportunity to compete.”

15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners when confronted with the above legal and factual position could not satisfy this Court on legal and factual controversy involved in the Petition, they emphasized to issue directions to Respondents to take Petitioners on job under compassionate circumstances as they were pursuing their claims since long. We are afraid there existed no compassionate circumstances to accommodate petitioners in job, it was merit only and only condition to seek job in a government department.

16. Sequel to the above discussion we are of the considered view that the Petitioners have failed to establish an undeniable claim in their favor or point out any illegality or infirmity in the appointment process, consequently these petitions fail being devoid of merits and not maintainable and are dismissed along with listed applications with no order as to the costs.

JUDGE

Asghar/P.A