Find a Lawyer

Briefly the relevant facts are these. On the 15th of March, 1972 the Government of Pakistan announced its Educational Policy outlining a scheme for the nationalisation of the privately managed colleges and schools in the country. It was followed by the Privately Managed Schools and Colleges (Taking Over) Regulations, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 118) as subsequently amended by Martial Law Regulation No. 11'8 (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance XVI of 1972 and Martial Law Regulation No. 118 (Punjab Amendment) Act X of 1973, in order to provide legal cover to this policy.

In this connection the Governor of the Punjab issued the Notification No. S. O. (NS) 1-1/72, dated 30th September, 1972 under para. 5 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 to the effect

that the privately managed Primary, Middle and High Schools listed therein situated in the Province of the Punjab shall stand nationalised as from the forenoon of the 1st day of October, 1972. By means of another Notification of even number dated the 24th October, 1972, the Governor of the Punjab announced tine appoint ment of the officers as per list attached therewith as headmasters/ Headmistresses of the privately managed High Schools nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The petitioners are some of the Headmasters/Headmistresses of these High Schools to which the educational policy was made applicable. According to them their status as Headmasters/

Headmistresses of the High Schools was guaranteed to them and they were entitled to the ' fixation of their salaries in the pay scales applicable to their counter parts in the Government service having regard to the length of service since their appointment in the pre-nationalization period. But on the 22nd of May, 1974 the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab has issued a Circular Letter No. 12792/NB. In accordance with the instruc tions embodied in this circular letter the petitioners and some other Head masters/Headmistresses of the High Schools are to be decategorised for the purpose of preparing a combined seniority list of all Headmasters/ Headmistresses of the High Schools alongwith the Senior English Teachers/ Headmasters of the Middle Schools, thereby placing them in the same category. It is alleged that the post of the Headmasters/Headmistresses of the High Schools is a gazetted post whereas the post of the Senior English Teachers/Headmasters of the Middle Schools is a subordinate post only.

In these circumstances the petitioners filed a petition under Article 199, of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the validity of the directions contained in the afore-mentioned Circular Letter No. 12792/NIB dated 22nd of May, 1974 issued by the Director of Public Relations, Punjab, on the ground that this decategorisation and the preparation of the combined seniority list is bound to adversely affect their status guaranteed to them.

During the pendency of the petition in the High Court at Lahore, a Notification No. S. O. (III)-1-59/73, dated 26th of September, 1974 was issued by the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred on him under para. 13 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 promulgating the Punjab Nationalised Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974. Inter alia according to previso to sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of these Rules a person holding the post of Headmaster or Headmistress of a High School at the time of nationalisation of the school and possessing qualification prescribed for the post of Senior English Teacher, shall be deemed to have been appointed as a Senior English Teacher only and that the post of Headmaster/Headmistress shall be filled in accordance with these Rules.

- In view of this further development the petitioners were allowed the permission to suitably amend their petition. In the amended petition filed by them they challenged the validity of these Rules as well. In support of their petition the petitioners largely relied on the provisions contained in sub-para. (2) of para. 7 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 which, according to them, guarantees the posts held by them before the taking over of the privately managed schools and colleges.

But their petition was dismissed in limine as incompetent by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 21st of July, 1975. They then filed an Inter-Court Appeal which was likewise dismissed in limine, on more or less different reasons of its own, by a Division Bench of the High Court on the 14th of October, 1976. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in this petition before us at considerable length. In dismissing the petition of the petitioners in limine, the learned Judge in Chambers was of the opinion;--

(1) that the provisions contained in Article 212, of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Act IX of 1974 operated on a bar to the jurisdiction of the High Court vested in it under Article 199 of the Constitution and therefore the writ petition filed by the petitioners are incompetent;

(ii) that the Punjab Nationalized Schools (Men and Women Section) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974. framed under para. 13 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118 were ultra vires of the provisions contained in Article 240 of the Constitution;

(iii) but, that these Rules could be deemed to have been competently made by the Governor in exercise of the powers otherwise vested in him under section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act VIII of 1974.

In this result the learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the writ petition as incompetent.

On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court concurred with the learned Single Judge in holding that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitu tion. At the same time the Division Bench disagreed with the learned Judge in Chambers by holding that the Punjab Nationalised Schools (Men and Women Section) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974, framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred in him by para. 13 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118, were intra vires of Article 240, of the Constitution and that he was not justified in making recourse to the provisions contained in section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act VIII of 1974 in his attempt, as a last resort, to uphold the validity of these Rules. Although the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal was inclined to hold in favour of the appellants on the merits, but dismissed their appeal for the only reason that the writ petition out of which it has arisen was not competent in the matter.

From a combined reading of these provisions the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that this ouster of the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution extends strictly to a final order, whether original or appellate made by a departmental authority in respect of terms and conditions of service, including disciplinary matters.

For all these reasons we grant the leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. Security in the sum of Rs. 5,000.

Issuance of temporary injunctions to the Government Department in respect of service pattern is bound to disturb their working, and they should not ordinarily be issued unless there are compelling reasons to do so because balance of convenience ordinarily would not lie in disturbing the administrative arrangements of the Depart ment. There can be no question of any irreparable injury being caused to the employee of refusing the temporary injunction to him as he can claim a monetary compensation in case he succeeds in his suit and the orders of the Government reverting the respondent to his original post are finally held as illegal and without jurisdiction."

These observations are quite apt and there are no compelling reasons to disturb the working of the Department in this case. In this connection section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act lays down that an injunction cannot be granted to interfere with the public duties of any Department of the Martial or Provincial Government. On these principles, therefore, the balance of convenience does not lie in the issuance of any temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners.

But at the same time it goes without saying that' any order passed by the Government in this connection will be subject to the final decision on the validity of the impugned circular letter and the Rules in question and the portion shall abide by the result of this appeal.

In the end we would like to add that this appeal raises question of considerable general importance to teachers of the taken over schools affecting a number of persons. It is, therefore, desirable that this appeal may be set down for disposal at a very early date preferably within two months. The record should be made ready at the earliest before the date of hearing fixed in the case.