Author name: admin

Notification / OM No. No.SO(Trg)7-14/2019 Dated 27-February-2025 Notification Issued By: School Education Department, Government Of The Punjab Punjab School Education Department to Review DTEs Regularization Cases–Official Notification: The Government of Punjab, School Education Department, has issued an official notification regarding the regularization of District Teacher Educators (DTEs) under the Punjab Regularization Act 2018. This decision follows the judgment passed by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan on October 9, 2024, directing the constitution of a Scrutiny Committee to evaluate the eligibility of petitioners for permanent employment. The notification outlines the background of multiple writ petitions filed by affected DTEs seeking restoration and regularization of their services. These cases were reviewed by the Lahore High Court and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which directed that all matters be referred to a Scrutiny Committee for impartial assessment. This decision is particularly significant for educators who were part of the Continuous Professional Development (CPD) Programme, which was discontinued in 2017. The government has now taken steps to address their concerns by evaluating their employment status and ensuring compliance with the Punjab Regularization Act 2018. GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJABSCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTDated Lahore, 27th Feb, 2025 Order No.SO(Trg)7-14/2019: WHEREAS, This consolidated order shall dispose of the following identical writ petitions wherein the petitioners prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and petitioners may be restored and their services may be regularized as DTES: i. Writ Petition No. 2572/2018 (Qasim Mehmood etc Vs GOP) ii. Writ Petition No. 8953/2023 (Abdul Sattar etc Vs GOP) iii. Writ Petition No. 7143/2022 (Zulfiqar Ali Vs GOP) iv. Writ Petition No. 35767/2022 (Hafiz Muhammad Sajad Shahid Vs GOP) v. Writ Petition No. 3115/2022 (Manzoor Hussain Vs GOP) 2.            AND WHEREAS, in compliance with the court’s orders dated 25-05-2024, 17-05-2022, 08-11-2022 & 03-03-2022 passed by the Honorable Court in writ petitions ibid, the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. During the course of personal hearing, they contended that their services may be regularized as per nomenclature as DTE (BS-16) as the department already implemented the court direction dated 25-05-2018 and regularized the services of Ex-TES against their substantive posts of new nomenclature i.e., Education Officer (BS-17). 3.            AND WHEREAS, Writ Petition No. 2572/2018 (Qasim Mehmood etc Vs GOP) was decided vide order dated 22.09.2020 by the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in the following terms: “2. The issue involved in this petition has already been dealt with and decided by this Court in Mst. Nabila Niaz etc. vs Secretary Health etc. (2020 PLS (C.S.)675). It is not denied that the judgment is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Relevant extract from the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “8. The Scrutiny Committee shall forward its recommendations to appointing authority, after due verification of academic record and scrutinizing the relevant record to determine whether the conditions stipulated in Section 3 (2) are fulfilled. It goes without saying that a contract employee, who fulfills the conditions, to the satisfaction of Scrutiny Committee or the Commission, is entitled to be regularized under Regularization Act of 2018 with immediate effect. The person, so regularized, shall be governed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder. However, seniority and fixation of pay etc. shall be governed by the provisions under Section 6 to 9 and 11 of the Regularization Act of 2018. 9. In view of above, it is held that petitioners are liable to be considered for regularization under the Regularization Act of 2018. The appointing authority is directed, therefore, to send petitioners’ cases to the Commission, if appointment against the posts in question falls within the purview of Commission, otherwise their cases for determination of eligibility be placed before the Scrutiny Committee. If Scrutiny Committee is not constituted under Section 5, it is directed to be constituted within 15 days without fails.” 3. This petition is also disposed of in the manner and to be extent as held and directed in above noted judgment.” Against which School Education Department filed CPLA No. 3520/2020 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the same was disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2024 as under: “11. Last but not least, if we look at the pith and substance of the impugned judgment of the High Court, it only holds that the respondents are liable to be considered for regularization under the Act and the appointing authority was directed to send their cases for consideration to the competent authority and, till the determination of eligibility, the services of the respondents shall not be terminated. However, the learned AAG carne up with an alternative plea that the respondents are already regular civil servants and they cannot be considered for regularization under the law, and further, that they could not invoke writ jurisdiction keeping in mind the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution. If according to the learned AAG, the respondents are already regular employees or civil servants, then this case has become even simpler: the matter is then only required to be sent to the Scrutiny Committee, who shall scrutinize the credentials and antecedents of the respondents, including their status to determine whether they are already regular employees or are still contractual employees, and if they are found to be contractual employees, then their future will be decided as to whether they are entitled to the benefit of regularization under the provisions or the Act or not, which cannot be decided summarily or in cursory manner, unless the matter goes to the Scrutiny Committee for their impartial consideration, with the proper application Of mind, and in accordance with the law, forward their recommendations to the appointing authority, as rightly directed by the learned High Court. 12. In the wake of the above discussion, we do not find any lawful justification to cause any interference in the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. The Civil Petition is dismissed, and leave is refused.” 4.            AND WHEREAS the Departmental Representative Quaid-e-Azam Academy