Pakistan Court Orders Inquiry into Illegal Appointments
The petitioners were never associated in any inquiry for the purpose of subsequently withdrawing their appointments.
The inquiry was conducted against the former District Education Officer (DEO) who was allegedly responsible for managing the illegal appointments. However, even with regard to him, there was no mention if any punitive action was taken against him for being involved in making the fake appointments whereby he fleeced and defrauded the department and the petitioners both.
Before declaring the appointments illegal or taking any drastic action against the petitioners, drastic action should have been taken against the responsible person who committed the illegality, if any, at the departmental level.
The beneficiaries of the appointments could not be blamed alone because primarily the authority who had issued appointment letters in the recruitment process was bound to be punished first rather than the petitioners who had commenced their duties in view of the appointment letters.
Keeping in mind all the attending circumstances, the department was bound to issue notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated and, in response, the petitioners might have appeared with the defence that the appointments were not illegal but issued after due process.
The petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing, which was a fundamental right enshrined under Article 10A of the Constitution.
The Provincial Law Officer as well as the Deputy Secretary (Law) proposed that an inquiry committee may be constituted to consider/examine the appointment process of the present petitioners and to verify their credentials/antecedents to determine whether they were rightly appointed or appointed on the basis of fake appointment letters.
The counsel for the petitioners agreed to such proposal.
The petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed with relevant directions to examine the entire appointment process of the petitioners.
In simpler terms, the given text is arguing that the petitioners' appointments were illegal because they were not issued by the competent authority. However, the petitioners should not be blamed for this, as they were not involved in the fraud and they commenced their duties in good faith. Before terminating the petitioners' services, the department should have given them a notice to show cause and an opportunity of hearing.
The court has agreed to the proposal of the Provincial Law Officer and the Deputy Secretary (Law) to constitute an inquiry committee to examine the appointment process of the petitioners and to verify their credentials/antecedents. The court has also allowed the appeals, with the direction to examine the entire appointment process of the petitioners.