PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday declared illegal the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government's policy on reappointment of employees sacked from 1996 to 1998.
The PHC ruled that the reappointment of the sacked government employees couldn't be made conditional to the qualification required for these jobs now. A larger bench comprising Justice Roohul Amin Khan, Justice Qalandar Ali Khan and Justice Syed Muhammad Attique Shah directed the provincial government to restore the services of the untrained teachers in accordance with the law.
The bench said they were appointed on the basis of the policy then in vogue in accordance with the qualifications required at that time for the posts.
The larger bench passed the decision in writ petitions filed by Intizar Ali, Bahramand and 58 others of the Education Department challenging the provincial government's policy on reappointment of the sacked employees.
Khalid Rehman, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the appointments were made between 1995 and 1996 in the Education Department as primary schoolteachers, drawing masters and certified teachers.
He said the petitioners were sacked in 1997 after the change of government on the ground that the appointments had been made on the basis of political affiliation.
He pointed out that when the Pakistan People's Party again assumed power in the centre, it enacted the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act 2010 in a bid to reinstate the employees terminated from the federal departments.
He contended that the provincial government also enacted the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act 2012, but it provided a different mechanism of reinstatement and named it re-employment.
Khalid Rehman stated that under the law a "sacked employee" was defined as a person appointed on regular basis to a civil post in the province and possessing the prescribed qualification and experience for the post at that time - from November 1, 1993 to November 30, 1996 - and dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period from November 1996 to December 1998 on the ground of irregular appointment.
He contended that the government had formulated a policy that only those sacked employees who fulfilled the present qualifications provided for the post should be re-employed.
He argued that at the time of appointment of the petitioners, the present policy was not in vogue and mostly untrained teachers were appointed and subsequently trained after getting employed.
He contended that on the one hand the federal government had adopted the policy of unconditional reinstatement of sacked employees, but on the other the provincial government made it conditional to having the required qualification for the jobs needed these days.
He argued that Establishment Department had also given its opinion, stating that the present policy was not appropriate as at the time of appointment of the sacked employees there was no condition of training for the posts. After hearing both the parties, the larger bench allowed the writ petitions and directed the government to reappoint the petitioners as per the law.
