ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Constt. Petition No.D-2586 of 2011

Date	Order with signature of Judge

Present:

Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, &

Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam

1. For katcha peshi

2. For hearing of CMA No.8871/2011

Date of hearing: 06-12-2017

Dated of order:

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. J.K. Jarwar, Advocate for respondent 3 & 4

Mr. Farman Ali Kanasro, Advocate for respondent No.5

Mr. Liaqat Ali Shar, Additional Advocate General

O R D E R

12-09-2014

MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J. The petitioner being aggrieved of the decision of respondents, for not appointing the petitioner as Primary School Teacher (PST) despite scoring requisite marks in the test, has filed present petition.

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole, Advocate, representing the petitioner has argued that despite passing the written test with flying colours and interview also, the petitioner has been deprived of from getting the appointment as PST in School at District Naushahro Feroze. It has been further submitted by referring to the Tentative Merit List issued by official respondents and available at page 19, that name of petitioner is listed at Sr.No.1, but her case was rejected on a frivolous ground of producing a bogus Certificate of Training, whereas other female candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioner were appointed as School Teachers.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, while controverting the above arguments, have stated that no discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner. The main reason for not appointing the petitioner as PST is that she has produced a fake / bogus Certificate of Training (CT) which clearly violates the terms of the Recruitment Policy; thus the petitioner cannot be considered for employment due to such fraudulent act. In support of his arguments the respondents have appended a list of bogus and doubtful certificates pertaining to various persons, also containing the name of petitioner. The list appears to have been issued by Controller Examination.

In rebuttal the petitioner’s counsel has relied upon the contents of his rejoinder and documents appended therewith. The main stance of the petitioner is that she never submitted CT certificate as there was no such requirement.

Arguments heard and record perused.

From the submissions of the learned counsel representing the respective parties and after examining of record, it is very much clear that the stance of respondents is not only contrary to record but also meritless. Interestingly, none of the respondents have disputed credentials of petitioner and particularly her passing of written test as a topper.

Secondly, it is an admitted fact that written test was conducted by an independent body-Sindh University Jamshoro, in which the petitioner secured first position and the tentative merit list available at page 19 as annexure-D to the petition has not been disputed by the respondents. The only ground for refusing the employment to the petitioner is the purported bogus CT certificate. The above referred list appended with the parawise comments issued by Controller of Examination (about bogus Certificates) itself lacks authenticity, inter alia, as it has not been properly stamped nor it appears to be issued like an official correspondence. Thirdly, it has not been disputed by respondents that CT certificate was one of the eligibility criteria and hence the arguments of petitioner’s side carries weight, that when submission of the CT certificate was not a prerequisite, then there was no occasion to submit the same. Fourthly, a Compliance Report dated 16.11.2017 has been submitted by the Secretary (Schools Education & Literacy Department)-respondent No.1, which is available at page 83 of the Court’s file, wherein, a comparative table is mentioned, showing the petitioner at Sr.No.1 having scored a total of 134 marks, whereas, the other three female candidates who have been given appointments have obtained lesser marks (than the petitioner). The interesting aspect of this compliance report is that only against petitioner 10 marks under the head of CT certificate has been mentioned, but no such marking is given to other female candidates. This shows that having a Certificate of Training is neither a prerequisite nor a part of eligibility criteria. Even if 10 marks of this CT certificate is deducted from over all score of petitioner, even then her total score will come to 124, which is still little higher than the other candidates. The cited case law relied upon by the respondents have no application to the facts of the present case, which after filing of the Compliance Report further endorse the stance of the petitioner. If a person, in the present case, the present petitioner, can score such high marks in a written test which was conducted by an independent body, then it is very difficult to believe that she will resort to such unlawful act of submitting a bogus certificate.

The education system is the backbone of every society and the primary education is a back bone of education system. Those who are at the helm of the affairs, if are sincere to safeguard the interest of this Province, should have ensured that vacancies for School Teachers are filled up purely on merits and merits alone. But what we are observing, is a downward trend with fatal results.

From the above discussion, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was wrongly refused the employment as Primary School Teacher (PST) and thus respondents are directed to consider her case in the light of above discussion and pass an appropriate order within a month from today. Compliance report should be submitted to this Court through its Additional Register.

Office is directed to issue notice to respondents as well as to learned AAG for compliance.

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA