SC dismisses education dept supervisors’ plea against transfers

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by 85 education department supervisors who had challenged their transfer by the government to the teaching posts they were originally hired at.

The counsel for the petitioners told the two-member bench headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed that his clients were appointed as teachers in different districts, but their services were later shifted to the administrative unit where they served as supervisors – monitoring schools, teachers’ attendance, etc.

He added that the petitioners have been working as supervisors for the past several years. But, now the education department has transferred them back to their earlier teaching posts – affecting their cadre, pay grade and potential promotions – and has appointed 200 new supervisors in their place.

The Sindh Additional Advocate General argued that the supervisors were appointed initially with the purpose of training primary school teachers, but now they have just been keeping track of teachers’ attendance. He added that their services have been reverted back to the teaching department where they were originally hired.

After hearing the arguments, the court observed that it has already issued an order regarding the reverting of deputation, own pay scale and out-of-turn promotions cases. Stating that persons appointed as teachers could not be transferred to non-teaching posts, the SC dismissed the education department employees’ petition.

In 2012, the top court had declared the rehiring of retired persons, deputationists, own pay scale (OPS) and out-of-turn promotions in all government departments as illegal. It has ordered the same in subsequent rulings as well.

Meanwhile, in a separate case, the SC directed the Sindh government to submit its record with regard to restoration and removal of police personnel from 2012 to 2015. The order came on the application of constable Faizan who submitted that the police department has once again removed him from service despite the fact that the services tribunal had restored his job. The provincial law officer submitted that the petitioner had failed the physical test upon which his appointment was cancelled.