Find a Lawyer

Case No. 224 of 1980, decided on 20th May 1980.

‑‑Nationalization of Colleges‑Person serving as Registrar prior to nationalisation and even not possessing basic qualifications, of Lecturer on date of nationalization‑Claim for being appointed as Lecturer, held, rightly rejected.

‑‑This appeal is directed against the order of Secretary, Education Department dated 13th March, 1980, informing the appellant that his request for appointment as Lecturer in N.P.S. 17 could not be accepted. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant before nationalization was appointed as Registrar by the private management of the F. C. College, Lahore. After nationalization of the college under M. L. R. 118 on 1st September, 1972 the appellant has been asserting his claim that his services should be nationlised as Lecturer and also that he was entitled to be fixed in N. P. S. 17. In this regard he produced before us a letter of the Principal, F. C. College dated 27th May, 1976 in which he recommended to the Government that the appellant could be adjusted as Lecturer in place of one Walter John Yuhanna who was on deputation to the Nigerian Government. Secondly letter dated 20th September, 1971 by Principal, F.C. College was also relied upon in which the Principal had regretted that the remarks about the appellant that "he is not on the teaching staff" were improper and that the appellant had been teaching up to M. A. level since 1971.

2. Mr. M. R. Malik, the learned Advocate appearing for the appel lant, vehemently contended that the appellant should be treated to have been appointed as Lecturer and in fact he had been performing the func tions of Lecturer eversince 1971. Thus the impugned decision dated 13^th March 1980 was contrary to the facts and was wholly unjustified. The Department on the other hand submitted that the appellant passed his M.A. (Political Science) in December, 1972 and thus he was not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer at the time of nationalisation on 1st September, 1972. It was also contended on behalf of the department that in the list of staff supplied to the Government under M. L. R. 118, the appellant was never included in the list of Lecturers and as such he was not entitled to have his services nationalised in the capacity of a Lecturer. It was rather submitted that the appellant at the relevant time was working as Registrar and thus he could not claim ignorance about the aforesaid list. The learned Govern ment Pleader also argued that the appellant was never appointed as Lecturer, nor he has been able to produce before this Tribunal any letter or authority to show his appointment as such without which he could not claim appointment in the capacity of a Lecturer. Thus according to the learned Government Pleader the impugned order was unexceptionable.

3. After hearing both the parties we are clearly of the view that the appeal has no force and merits to fee rejected. In the first instance the appellant has not been able try produce any document to establish his appointment as a Lecturer in the F. C. College, Lahore even under the private Management. Contention of the learned Government Pleader that the appellant was not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer till nationaliz ation appears to be well‑found The result card produced in the Court revealed that the appellant passed his M. A. examination somewhere in November/December, 1972. Evidently the appellant was not qualified to be appointed as Lecturer till that time. Even in the list of the Lecturers supplied by the management to the Government, the name of the appellant was never included. As such the appellant had no claim to be absorbed as Lecturer after nationalization. The letters by the Principal, F. C. College, Lahore, at different occasions could not entitle the appellant to have his appointment as Lecturer with retrospective effect. In view of the above the decision of the Government dated 13th March, 1980, communicating to the appellant that his services could not be nationalised as Lecturer appeared

To be unexceptionable.

Consequently the appeal fails and is rejected in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.