Mst. Kalsoom etc Vs DEO female

I

Judsment Sheet

IN TI{E PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

ABBOTTABAD BENCH.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P.No. 384-N2016.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing... ... 0 3. I 0. 2 01 8... ... ... ... ...

Petitioners (Mst. Kulsoom etc.) by Mr. Abdul Saboor Khan, Advocate Respondents (D.E.O (F) and others) by Sardar Muhammad Asif, AAG along with Amir Muhammad ADEO (F) Battagram.

SYEDMUHAMMADA TTIOAE J:- P etltloners

seek constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with the Prayer:-

"On acceptance of the instant Writ Petition, the impugned notifications/orders Nos. 599- 603, 594-98,604-8, 614-18 and 609-13 dated 05.04.2016 may graciously be declared as illegal, without lawful authority andvoid'ab- initio and the respondent No- i be directed to reinstate the petitioners into service with all back benefits admissible under the relevant law/rules or any other writ, order or relief as may deem fit and aPProPriate in the circumstances of the case, rnay please be passed/issued."

2.Brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued a publication for appointment against vacant posts of C.T, D.M, T.T, P'E'T and Primary t

Teachers. The petitioners along with others applied for the post of D.M (Drawing Master) and after qualifuing the NTS Test as well as interview conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee, they were appointed as Drawing Mistresses vide appointment order dated 02.04.2015. The petitioners joined their services as Drawing Mistresses, however, vide impugred notifications dated 05.04.2016, the services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that they were not eligible for the post of Drawing Mistress in the light of letter issued by the Directorate of Elementary & Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar dated 05.08.2015.

3.The comments were sought from the

respondents which were accordingly submitted. In their comments, the respondents contended that the requisite qualification for the post of DM was B.AlBSc or equivalent qualification along with one year Drawing Master Course Certificate, while the petitioners were having Inter Grade Drawing Examination (IGDE) Diploma which in the light of guidelines issued by the E & SE Departrnent Peshawar dated 05'08'2015 is not equivalent to one year Certificate of Drawing Master

I

issued by the RDE Peshawar, therefore, their services were terminated.

4.Arguments heard and record perused.

5.Perusal of record reveals that as per advertisement issued by the respondents, the requisite qualification for appointment against the post of Drawing Master was B.A/BSc or equivalent along with certificate of one year course of drawing master. Admittedly the petitioners possess the qualifi cation of B.A/BSc, however' instead of certificate of one year course of Drawing Master, they were having at their credit Elementary/Inter Grade Drawing Course Certificate issued by the Inspector of Drawing Grade Examination for Sindh Directorate of Schools Education HYderabad.

6.The question as to whether the certificate of IGDE is equivalent or not to one year DM Certificate issued by RDE Peshawar, has been resolved by this Court in case titled"Khaista Rehman and others Vs' EDO and others" reported as (2013 PLC (CS) '12), whereby the certificates of DMs issued by the recognized lnstitutions of Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were declared having was the same status. The aforesaid judgment of this court upheld by the worthy apex Court in Civil Petitions No' 456-Pl2Ol2,9-P to I l-P/2013 and 19-P &20-Pl20l3'vide t

judgment dated2l.06.20l3. Similarly, in WP No. 2004- Pl20l6, this court held that:- "In absence of any law and rules to prove that the IDE Certificate ofthe petitioner is not equivalent to DM Certificate of any recognized Institutions of the Province of Khyber PaWttunkhwa, and anything in black & white to Prove the same as falce one, we cannot subscribe the stance ofrespondent No. 3. The petitioner has brought on record Notification/ appointment order bearing Endst. No.2l8-29/DEO (F) NSNEstab/ Appu. Dated 3/,.03.2015, issued bY the District Education fficer (Female) Nowshera, wherein Miss Saima Gul and Miss Saeeda, having IDE certificates from the sarne institution ofSindh, have been appointed as DMs, but in District Peshawar, the resPondents have declared the certificate of the petitioner to be not equivalent to DM Certificate. It aPPears from the record that in District Mardan, appointments of Drawing Masters had been made on the basis of same IDE CertiJicates vide appointment order dated 27.0i.2015' Subs equentlY, the aPPointees were

given show cause notices by the competent authority on the basis of same controversy, their salaries u)ere stopped, and they were directed to approach respondent No. 2 (Director Elementary & Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunklnoa, Peshawar), for resolution of the issue. The matter was resolved by respondent No. 2 and on whose directiow, the show cause notices were withdrawn and the appointments of the aforesaid appointees were held legal on the basis of IDE certiJicates. Identical situation was faced bY the AgencY Education Officer Baiaur, who referred the matter to Director, Directorate of Schools Education Hyderabad, Sindh, and he vide letter dated 17.08.2015, besides verifying the certificates, clarified that IDE Directorate of Schools Education Sindh is a government r ec o gnized Ins titution. " Similarly, WP-66/2009 and WP No. 148-Ml20ll, the same view prevailed before this Court. Moreover, this court in the case of "Babar Elahi & others Vs' The Director of Education and olhers (NLR 2001 Semice t l4)" , heldthatthe preferential treatment to the certificates

't issued by the Govemment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vis-d- vis those issued by other institutions of the country was discriminatory and hence violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

7 Since the services of the petitioners have been terminated, on the ground that they were not having a certification issued by RDE Peshawar, rather were having a certificate issued by IGDE Sind, therefore, the act of the respondents is in derogation with the judgments passed by this court as well as by the august aPex court.

8.Resultantly, while allowing this petition, the impugned notifications are declared as null and void.

Petitioners would be entitled for their seniority with their batch mates, however, they would not be entitled to claim their back benefits/salaries as they have not performed services during the said Period.

Anno unced.

Dt.03.10.2018.

JU

,r#/(

TuJail/+ Atlique Shoh Hott'bte Justices L-al Jdrt Kltuok & Syed Mthonnod