Find a Lawyer

Case No. 27/1636 of 1979, decided on 28th June, 1982.

‑‑ Status of school taken over ‑ Not within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal ‑ Teacher of nationalised school ‑ Entitled to protection of pay ast drawn ‑ Teacher of nationalised school claiming that school in which he was serving was a High School and not a primary school and that he should be treated as Head‑ master High School ‑Service Tribunal, held, has no jurisdiction in determining status of school or to grant declaration regarding upgradation of an institution ‑ Pay last drawn duly protected Interference, in circumstances, refused by Service Tribunal ‑ Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Abdul Sattar Nadeem Hashmi, Teacher has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded Government of the Punjab, through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Education Department, Director Public Instructions, Punjab, Lahore and Director of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the orders of 27‑9‑1972, whereby the Achha Madrasa, Bahawalpur, was nationalized as a Primary School, be declared wrong and also the orders /notifications which have been issued by the respondents in the pursuance of Rules 1974 or even earlier, treating/showing the appellant as a Primary School Teacher, or even as Senior English Teacher, be set aside. The appellant be declared to be the Headmaster of High School from 1‑10‑1972 with date of continuous appointment from 6‑9‑1963, with full benefit of pay scale, and seniority among headmasters ; alternatively if the 1974 Rules, are not declared to be void, then the respondents be directed to appoint the appellant as Senior English Teacher, with effect from 1‑10‑1974 with the benefit of seniority as provided for in these Rules and also given due place as per seniority list at Annexure A'

3. The learned counsel of the appellant argued the implication of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 and the Nationalized Schools Teaching Posts Rules, 1974 viz‑a‑viz the appellant's case. Main issue discussed at length by the appellant's counsel was the status of Achha Madrasa, Bahawalpur, at the time of its nationalization. He vehemently argued that this private school had a status of a high school at the time of its nationalization but it was wrongly nationalized as a Primary School. Thus, he contended that the appellant also should have been declared as headmaster of a high school and not as a teacher of primary school, at the time of nationalization of said Madrasa. He also referred to documents attached with the appellant's appeal and argued to show that Achha Madrasa, Bahawalpur at the time of nationalization was a. high school and not primary school. He submitted that thus the order of 27‑9‑1972 whereby Achha Madrasa, Bahawalpur, was nationalized as a primary school was wrong. This Madrasa, be shown as school and simultaneously the appellant as headmaster of a high school. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted the arguments by saying that this Madrasa was nationalized correctly, as it was functioning actually as a primary school and not a high school at the time of nationalization. He also referred to the documents, placed by the appellant alongwith his appeal and also showed the entries from the pay registers maintained for making payments to the serving staff before the nationalization, to prove and show that it was actually a primary school named as Achha Madrasa Bahawalpur, and not high school, as conten ded by the appellant's counsel. The learned District Attorney further submitted that the list of staff in position and staffing pattern submitted by the appellant himself to the Education Department before nationaliza tion showed that the staffing pattern and strength available at that time was for a primary school Only: Further he clarified that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is confined only to the terms and conditions of the civil servants and is not attracted to the institution itself ; thus this tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaration regarding status/upgradation of an institution.

4. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned District Attorney and have also consulted the relevant record very carefully. We are also conscious of the fact that their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in their latest judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1/81 to 1581 entitled Province of Punjab v. Syed Bashir Bukhari and others which was decided on 10‑11‑1981 in their lengthy judgment after discussion in the entire case have come to a positive conclusion that only the pay of officers/officials of the privately managed school nationalized under M. L. R. 118, will be protected and not the status of the post held by them. In view of this verdict of the highest court of realm and keeping their judgment in view, we need not go into the controversy whether Achha Madrasa, Bahawalpur was a Primary School or high school, at last pay drawn by the appellant was only required to be protected. The appellant was drawing Rs. 495 (total emolument) per month at the time of nationalization of this Madarsa, which was duly protected in his case even after nationalization. We are further of the opinion that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in determining a status of a school or to grant declaration regarding up‑gradation of an institution.

5. In view of the facts mentioned above and keeping in view the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, mentioned earlier, we proceed to dismiss the appeal as without merits.

There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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