Appointment latter meaning , Appointment letter can't withdraw, and department cant review their orders. LLB decree is equal to Master decree
An appointment letter is a formal document issued by an employer to a candidate selected for a position. It outlines the terms and conditions of the employment and officially confirms the individual's appointment to the job. While the exact content can vary, here are common elements typically included in an appointment letter:
1. **Job Title and Department:**
- Clearly state the position the candidate is being appointed to and the department they will be a part of.
2. **Date of Joining:**
- Specify the date when the employee is expected to start working.
3. **Salary and Compensation:**
- Outline the salary, any benefits, and other compensation details. This may include information on bonuses, allowances, or other perks.
4. **Working Hours:**
- Specify the regular working hours and any other relevant details regarding the work schedule.
5. **Probation Period:**
- If applicable, mention the duration and conditions of any probationary period.
6. **Terms and Conditions:**
- Detail the terms and conditions of employment, including any policies or rules the employee is expected to adhere to.
7. **Reporting Structure:**
- Clearly indicate who the employee will report to and the hierarchical structure within the organization.
8. **Termination Clause:**
- Include information on the conditions under which employment may be terminated, notice periods, and any other relevant details.
9. **Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure:**
- Include clauses regarding the confidentiality of company information and any non-disclosure agreements.
10. **Confirmation of Offer Acceptance:**
- Request the employee's confirmation of acceptance by a specified date.
11. **Contact Information:**
- Provide contact details for the employee to reach out in case of questions or concerns.
Always ensure that the appointment letter complies with local labor laws and regulations, and it's recommended to seek legal advice when drafting such documents to ensure accuracy and compliance.
Case laws about appointment latter
8.
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
MULTAN BENCH MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.12396 of 2017
Baqir Hameed & another
versus
The Government of Punjab etc.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing: 20.06.2018.
Petitioners by:
Raja Naveed Azam, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan AAG with
M. Akram Shahid, DEO (M-EE), Muzaffargarh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR J. Through this
Constitutional petition, the petitioners have called in question the
order dated 23.08.2017, passed by District Education Officer (M-EE)
Muzaffargarh, whereby the appointment letters issued to the
petitioners for the post of ESE (Science/Math) have been withdrawn.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondents advertised for
recruitment of educators in District Muzaffargarh. The petitioners
having academic qualification B.A, LL.B. applied for appointment to
the posts of ESE (Science/Math). They cleared NTS test as well as the
interview and were selected and appointed on 02.08.2017, where-after
they joined their place of posting in respective schools, all of a
sudden, the District Education Officer (M-EE) Muzaffargarh/
respondent No.4 withdrew the appointment letters of the petitioners
vide order dated 23.8.2017. The said order is under challenge through
this Constitutional petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the appointment
letters of the petitioners have been withdrawn without issuing showcause notices to the petitioners or providing them an opportunity of
being heard. It is also claimed that the withdrawal order is mala fide
and based on colourful exercise of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is
W.P. No.12396/2017
-:2:-
claimed that the Higher Education Commission (‘HEC’) recognizes
the educational qualification of LL.B as equal to Master Degree
therefore, the action of the respondents to deduct the marks awarded
to the petitioners for qualification of Master Degree is without lawful
authority and consequently the order dated 23.8.2017 of withdrawal of
their appointments is liable to be struck down.
4.
On the other hand, learned AAG has argued that the petitioners
did not hold Master Degree and were not entitled to be granted marks
for the same, hence claims that the marks for Master Degree were
erroneously awarded and rightly deducted whereby the petitioners
were not able to maintain their position in the merit list prepared for
the said appointments and consequently their appointment letters have
been rightly withdrawn.
5.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
6.
From the perusal of the Recruitment Policy 2016-2017 for
School Specific Educators and SSE (Assistant Education Officers)
“Policy” and the advertisement dated 19.10.2016 published in daily
Nawa-i-Waqt issued by respondents for the purpose of appointment of
educators, it is observed that the academic qualification prescribed for
the appointments of teachers of ESE (Science/Math) BS-9 includes
Master Degree, Bachelor Degree and LL.B, etc., at least in second
division, which is reproduced below:
Nomenclature
of post
Academic Qualification
(at least 2nd Division
Professional
Qualification
(at least 2nd
Division)
ESE
(SciMath)
MA/MSC/B.Sc/BA/BA(Hon)/BSc(Hon)/BBA/MCS/
BCS/M.Sc.(IT)/MIT/LLB/M.Com/B.Com/MBA/
BS (Hon)/ADE/MBIT/ BBAIT/ BS(TS 4 years)/
Master degree/Bachelor degree/DVM/Animal
Husbandry/Doctor of Pharmacy/ Graduation in
Engineering/Technology/ Agriculture/ Nursing/
Commerce in any Subject(s)/ Discipline/ Trade/
Technology OR Master Degree/ Bachelor Degree/
Bachelor Honor Degree/ ADE and intermediate
with at least two major subjects out of Physic,
Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Statistics and
Computer Science OR MSEd/ BSEd with at least
two subjects out of Chemistry, Zoology, Botany,
Physics Math-A Course, Math-B Course & Math.
W.P. No.12396/2017
-:3:-
7.
The Policy provides the following ranking criteria for
appointment of Educators:
“RANKING CRITERIA FOR EDUCATORS.
Interview
Professional Qualification
Marks allocated for academic qualification
Matric 13 marks
Intermediate 15 marks
Graduation 15 marks
Master Degree 15 marks
Local Residence
Test
Total Merit Marks
05
05
58
12
20
100
Note:
(i)
Merit marks to be calculated on the basis of percentage
obtained in each examination.
(ii)
……………………
(iii) The candidates of ESE of ESE (Sci-Math) having Master
Degree in any subject are considered academic qualification.
However, M.Ed/MA(Edu)/B.Ed degree shall be considered as
professional qualification.
(iv)
…………………
(v)
…………………
(vi)
…………………
(vii) Merit marks for BA/BS(Hons 4-years), B.Sc (4-years) in
Agriculture and B.Sc (4-years) in Engineering/Technology
are calculated out of the qualification marks of Graduation
plus Masters decree.
(viii) …………………
(ix) The candidates shall submit their certificates/result cards
with application clearly indicating total marks, subject wise
allocated marks and obtained marks issued by the concerned
Controller of Board or recognized University. Further, a
certificate issued by the concerned Controller of Board /
University shall be attached with the application regarding
conversion of CGPA into percentage marks, if applicable.”
8.
From the perusal of ranking criteria, it is apparent that the
candidates were to be awarded marks out of 58 allocated for the
educational qualification, which were further sub-divided as
Matric-13 marks, Intermediate-15 marks, Graduation-15 Marks and
Master Degree-15 marks. The LL.B Degree has not been mentioned in
W.P. No.12396/2017
-:4:-
the said ranking criteria although the said Degree is mentioned as one
of the basic required academic qualifications for appointment to the
said posts.
9.
Now, the questions arise for determination are that Whether the
LL.B Degree would be treated as equal to Graduation or Master
Degree and Whether LL.B Degree holders are entitled to receive
marks allocated for academic qualification of Master Degree for the
purpose of appointment to the post of ESE (Science/Math). In this
regard, it is observed that during the recruitment process, the
respondents treated the LL.B qualification as equivalent to Master
Degree and awarded marks on the basis of percentage obtained in the
LL.B examinations and issued appointment letters to the petitioners
but after they joined their services, all of sudden on 23.08.2017, their
appointment letters were withdrawn on the ground that LL.B Degree
holder candidates had erroneously been awarded marks for LL.B
Degree by treating them as holders of Master Degree. The said action
of the respondents was called in question in Constitutional petition
(W.P.No.5598/2017) titled Muhammad Saleem and 13 others, and the
same was referred by this Court vide order dated 15.08.2017 to the
Secretary SED Lahore/ respondent No.1 as a representation to decide
the matter in accordance with law and policy applicable thereto.
Thereafter the respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the petitioners
for treating LL.B as equal to Master Degree and held that candidates
having LL.B Degree were not eligible to claim 15 additional marks
for their Degree by treating the same as equivalent to Master Degree
(M.A.). Consequently the orders of appointment issued to the
petitioners were claimed by the respondents to have been rightly recalled.
10. In advertisement for appointment, LL.B is one of the academic
qualifications required for the purpose of appointment, which is
mentioned alongwith qualification of Master Degree and degrees
equivalent to Master and Bachelor are also included in the prescribed
W.P. No.12396/2017
-:5:-
qualification. However, it has not been mentioned Whether the LL.B
Degree would be treated equal to Graduation or Master Degree. The
LL.B Degree is a Degree higher than the Graduation/Bachelor Degree
and is obtained after completing study course comprising of 3-years
after Graduation. In the Note No.(vii) attached to the Ranking Criteria
(supra) it is mentioned that Merit marks for BA/BS(Hons 4-years),
B.Sc.(4-years) in Agriculture and B.Sc. (4-years) in Engineering/
Technology are calculated out of the qualification marks of Graduation plus
Master Degree. From the perusal of the afore-referred Note, it is observed
that even a Bachelor Degree having duration of four years is treated as
equal to Master Degree and its marks are to be calculated out of the
qualification marks of Graduation plus Master Degree based on years of
education although the same by its nomenclature is not a Master Degree.
Therefore, on the basis of same criteria and analogy, the LL.B Degree
cannot be equated with a Bachelor Degree only and is to be treated more
than the same.
11. The Higher Education Commission vide its letter dated July
27th 2017, has declared the Bachelor of laws equal to Master Degree
for the purposes of academic qualification, which letter is reproduced
below.
“7.
With reference to your application dated July 27th 2017
on the subject, it is informed that University of Sargodha is a
chartered university in public sector. The Higher Education
Commission recognizes Bachelor of Laws “Transcript” held by
you from University of Sargodha after ‘B.A/14-years schooling
as equivalent to corresponding Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) degree.
On the basis of year of schooling, holder of Bachelor of Laws
degree may apply for the posts where required qualification is
Master’s degree in general stream involving 16-year of
schooling. It may also be noted that admission in a university
for further education and determination of suitability in relation
to job requirement rest with the concerned university and
employing agency, respectively and thus Commission has no
role in such issues. This letter is being issued on provisional
basis subject to submission of original LL.B degree.”
(emphasis supplied).
W.P. No.12396/2017
-:6:-
12. The Higher Education Commission is authorized to declare
equivalence of degrees and a degree not recognized by Higher
Education Commission if worthless like a piece of paper and cannot
be equated to that of a ‘Degree’ because such Degree is subject to
recognition which provides sanctity to the Degree. Reliance is placed
on Haji Nasir Mehmood v. Mian Imran Masood & others (PLD 2010
Supreme Court 1089). In the said judgment, while discussing the
powers of HEC in section 10(o) of the Higher Education Commission
Ordinance, 2002 it has also been observed that Higher Education
Commission may determine equivalence and recognition of Degrees,
Diplomas and Certificates awarded not only by Institutions within the
country but as well as the institutions functioning abroad. The relevant
portion of the judgment has been reproduced below:
“11. A bare reading of Section 10(o) would make it abundant
clear that the Commission may determine the equivalence and
recognition of degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded not
only by the institutions within the country but as well as the
institutions functioning abroad. We are not impressed by the
contention of Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr.
Advocate Supreme Court that Higher Education Commission
has nothing to do with such matters for the simple reason that
section 10(o) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance,
2002 has been examined on various occasions and the
contention as mentioned above was not considered at all and
Commission was found competent to determine the equivalence
and recognition of degrees and diplomas.”
13. Even otherwise, LL.M Degree which is higher than LL.B
Degree has been declared equal to M.Phil. Reliance is placed on
Shahid Hussain Abbasi, Assistant Professor of Law v. Secretary to the
Government of N.W.F.P Education Department & others. (2007
SCMR 951). The relevant portion is reproduced below:
“6.
It is admitted fact that after joining education department as
officiating lecturer appellant obtained LL.M. which is equal to
W.P. No.12396/2017
-:7:-
M.Phil, therefore, we are of the opinion that he had improved his
education, as such was fully entitled for incentive of advance
increment. The assertion of the Tribunal that when he was inducted
in service, he was not LL.M. seems to be against the above policy, in
view of the para, which is reproduced hereinabove. The benefit of
such incentive goes to the employee who has obtained degree during
the service but he was not possessing at the time of his induction in
the service. It is an admitted fact that degree was obtained by the
appellant on 29th December, 1988 when he was already into the
service.”
14. In the Policy and advertisement issued thereunder, the LL.B
Degree was specifically mentioned as a requisite academic
qualification. The said Degree is higher than a Bachelor Degree. The
Bachelor Degree of 4 years has been treated as equal to Master
Degree in the Policy by calculating its marks as Graduation plus
Master Degrees on the basis of years of education. The Higher
Education Commission recognizes the LL.B Degree equal to Master
Degree also on the basis of years of education. The LL.M Degree
being a higher Degree than LL.B is treated equal to Degree of M.Phil.
There is nothing in the Policy or the advertisement providing that
LL.B Degree would be treated as less than the Master Degree. The
petitioners were provided the benefit of the LL.B qualification at the
time of their appointments by providing 15 additional marks,
therefore, the LL.B Degree for all intents and purposes on the basis of
years of education already recognized by the Policy for 4-years
Bachelor Degree is to be treated as Master Degree for the purpose of
appointment under the Policy. It is not the case of the respondents that
LL.B Degree was not a required academic qualification under the
Policy and could not be considered for appointment. Moreover, there
is no prohibition in the Policy wherein the qualification of LL.B has
been declared not entitled to 15 marks for the purpose of appointment
as ESE (Science/Math). What is not prohibited is permitted unless
same specifically violates any law or rules. Reliance may be placed
W.P. No.12396/2017
-:8:-
on Additional Collector-II, Sales Tax, Lahore v. M/s Abdullah Sugar
Mills Ltd. and others (2003 SCMR 1026). Therefore, once having
awarded the marks for LL.B Degree as equivalent to Master Degree,
the respondents could not thereafter be allowed to deduct the said
marks and withdraw the order of appointment of the petitioners, more
so, for the reason that the said orders had been acted upon and the
petitioners had joined the services and accordingly decisive steps had
been taken on both sides where-after vested rights had been created in
favour of the petitioners which cannot be lightly taken away on the
basis or reasons mentioned by the respondents. It is not the case of the
respondents/department that the petitioners had obtained the
appointment on the basis of fraud and mis-representation, rather the
case is that the petitioners were not entitled to the marks of LL.B
Degree which had been erroneously provided to them. Their
appointments cannot be said to have been made in violation of the
rules or policy and consequently principle of locus poenitentiae would
not permit the competent authority to undo the same and remove the
incumbents from the service. Reliance is placed on Mian Tariq Javaid
Vs. Province of Punjab etc. (2008 SCMR 598).
Although an authority that has passed an order has the authority
to withdraw, vary or rescind the same under Section 20 of Punjab
General Clauses Act, 1956 but the said power cannot be exercised
when a vested right is created in the favour of the other party. Even
otherwise, the order of the competent authority for awarding marks
out of 15 to LL.B Degree holders on the basis of percentage obtained
in the said examination by them, was not an illegal order rather it
could only be treated an order based on interpretation of the policy.
Once having interpreted the Policy in favour of petitioners and issuing
them appointment letters, the respondents/authority would be
estopped and could not be allowed to later-on interpret the said Policy
differently especially in a manner that cannot co-exist with the earlier
interpretation just to deprive the petitioners of vested rights already
accrued in their favour. Reliance may be placed on Chairman
W.P. No.12396/2017
-:9:-
Selection Board Vs. Wasif Zameer (1997 SCMR 15) and Chairman
Senate Vs. Shaiq Ahmad Khan (2016 SCMR 460).
15. Besides authorities cannot be allowed to approbate and reapprobate by adopting contrary pleas in the same breath in the same
matter to review their previous orders. Reliance in this behalf is
placed on Chairman Minimum Wage Board Vs. Fayyaz Khan
Khattock (1999 SCMR 1004). Consequently, the order passed by
respondent No.4 dated 23.08.2017, whereby the appointment letters of
the petitioners have been withdrawn, is declared to have been passed
on the basis of wrong interpretation of the Policy, without lawful
jurisdiction and of no legal effect and the same is set-aside. The
petitioners shall be re-instated into service on the position which was
prevalent before passing the afore-referred order dated 23.08.2017.
16. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed in
the above terms.
(MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR)
JUDGE
Maqbool/KMSubhani*
Approved for reporting.
For more information call or Whatsapp 03244010279
Comments
Post a Comment