SHC suspends notifications that allowed transfers of subject specialist teachers

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has taken exception to the transfer of subject specialist teachers against the education department policy and suspended all the modified notifications regarding transfers from native districts, except in case of a suitable transfer or transfer to an adjacent district.

The direction came on an application with regard to lack of implementation of the education policy, non-appointment of schoolteachers and dilapidated condition of school buildings in the province.

A single bench of the high court comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar observed that the SHC had directed the education department that all the subject specialists shall be posted in their respective district of appointment. The high court observed that categorical directions were given that the policy shall be at par of the college department that provided five years, whereas, offer of school education department provided one year.

The bench observed that it had come on record that earlier notifications were modified and the subject specialists had been shifted against the policy even out of the district by accommodating the candidates.

The high court suspended all subsequent modified notification against the policy of education department, except in case of adjacent district and suitability. The bench also issued a show cause notice to the school education secretary to explain why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him.

The SHC observed that the secretary shall ensure that the policy shall be framed in view of court orders and till then, in view of one year policy, all candidates shall be posted in their native district.

The high court observed that in case of failure, his action will be considered pejorative liable to action. The SHC directed the education secretary to place the record with regard to earlier notification of posting of all candidates and modified notifications with justification on the next date.

The bench was informed by the additional finance secretary that the government had approved reshuffling of 3,848 posts of subject specialists as per requirement/demand of the education department and would be flashed in the upcoming budget.

He submitted that around 18,000 posts of teaching and non-teaching had been approved and the same would be flashed in the budget. The high court observed that it had also come on record that 56,000 seats were vacant in the school education department that were yet to be filled.

The bench directed the education secretary to complete merit list of the candidates having secured over 40 marks for appointment; however, with regard to marks on expertise, verification of documents shall be mandatory, and in case those marks were added on the basis of fake documents, criminal cases would be registered against the candidates and district recruitment committee (DRC) members.

The high court ordered that such exercise shall be completed within a three-month period thereafter new recruitments shall be made within six months through any reputable third party testing agency. The SHC was informed that 8,000 posts were vacant and 7,000 would be added in upcoming budget.

The SHC directed the chief secretary to constitute a committee to address any instances of non-compliance or deviations from the original terms. The high court observed that the committee would specifically focus on identifying and rectifying any violations within the stipulated 15-day period.

The high court observed that if the committee identified any delinquencies or breaches, the matter would be referred to the chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission for further investigation. The SHC observed that the chairman would oversee a thorough probe to ensure transparency and accountability.

The SHC also ordered the formation of a divisional level committee that would operate under the supervision of the directors who had firsthand knowledge of the field and their recommendations would guide all postings and transfers.

The bench observed that the education secretary would not have the authority to bypass the recommendations put forth by the field experts and all decisions regarding postings and related matters must align with the committee’s recommendations.

The SHC observed that it had come on record that some portion of the education budget under the committee headed by deputy commissioners was not being released as the committee had no interest to release the relevant budget. The high court directed the school secretary to submit a reasonable proposal by minimising or excluding the role of deputy commissioners with the consultation of the relevant departments on the next hearing.