Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Locus poenitentiae and animus revertendi ‑ Principles of Assistant Store Keeper serving in Government School improving his qualifications appointed temporarily as Secondary School Teacher with stipulated conditions that such appointment will not confer any right to claim for vacancy and seniority and he will be liable to reversion to original post at any time without any reason Departmental Recruitment Committee subsequently finding that he was not eligible to be considered as "in‑service candidate" hence said appointment withdrawn‑Withdrawal of order challenged on grounds of principles of locus poenitentiae and animus revertendi as having been acted upon‑Contention, in circumstances, rejected and in view of conditions in appointment order its withdrawal, held, perfectly lawful‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.

Masud Ahmed Riaz for Appellant.

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

. ‑Muhammad Ashraf, Assis tant Store Keeper, Government Central Model School, Mianwali has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Director (Schools), Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Director of Education, Sargodha Division, as respondents. This appeal is at the stage of preliminary hearing. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 26th August, 1982 be set aside and the appellant be restored as Secondary School Teacher (Technical) from 23rd May, 1982.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service at Central Model School, Mianwali as Assistant Store Keeper on 4th June, 1966. The appellant improved his qualification while serving in the Education Department, and was appointed temporarily as Secondary School Teacher (Technical), Government Central Model High School. Mianwali vide order, dated 29th April, 1982. According to the condition' No. 3 of this appointment order, it was clearly mentioned that he would be liable to reversion to his original post at any time without assigning any reason thereof. On the decision taken by the Departmental Recruit ment Committee, the appellant's appointment order as Secondary School Teacher (Technical) was withdrawn because he was not eligible to be considered as an in service candidate', vide Director of Education, Sargodha Division, Sargodha office order, dated 26th August, 1982. Hence this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was not legally open to the respondent No. 2 to withdraw the order which had been made by the competent authority and had been duly imple mented and acted upon and thus the vested right of appointment bad accrued in favour of the appellant which could not be taken away. The respondent was debarred from withdrawing the order on the basis of principle of locus poenitentiae animus revertendi. The learned counsel and prayed that the impugned order be set aside on above submission.

4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the appellant's counsel and have perused the appointment order dated 29th April, 1982 of the appellant, posting him as Secondary School Teacher (Technical). The condition No. 3 contained in this appointment order clearly lays down that "the appointment as S. S. T. will not confer on the teacher any right to claim for vacancy and seniority; and will be liable to reversion to original post at any time without any reason thereof". The above term and condition of his appointment order are‑ very much clear and authority was competent to withdraw these orders whenever the authority decided so. Thus, the withdrawal of the appointment of the appellant through order dated 26th August, 1982 of respondent No. 2, is perfectly in order and is lawful.

5. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no force in the appeal of the appellant, which is dismissed in limine.

1. E.

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.