LAHORE – MIAN DAWOOD - The Punjab Executive District Education Officers had allegedly recruited teachers on the basis of favouritism without advertising the posts, by ignoring the prescribed the rules and regulations and also changing the criteria secretly.
All this was disclosed on Thursday when the Lahore High Court ordered the Secretary School Educations Department to conduct inquiry against education officer of Toba Tek Singh. Residents of Toba Tek Singh had approached the LHC in 2009 by filing a writ petition alleging the district education officer had recruited the teachers for the subjects of Arabic and Drawing without advertising the changed criteria for the said posts. 
The authorities concerned had firstly inquired the applications through an advertisement for the posts of said subjects. However, the department rejected all applications by claiming that no applicant fulfils the criteria, the petitioners submitted.
Meanwhile, the EDO changed the criteria secretly and recruited the teacher who held Madrassah degrees by equalizing the said degrees to Masters in Arts and Bachelor of Arts. The change in criteria was not advertised, the petitioner claimed.
It may be noted that the LHC has so far heard three cases pointing out the same technique of changing the criteria secretly and allegations of favouritisms by the ‘Baboos’ of school education department. These three petitions were filed by the residents of Chaniot, Kasur and another district. In case of Chiniot, Chief Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed had stayed the recruitments. The stay order was later withdrawn after the assurance of provincial authorities that the recruitments would be done after advertising the changing in the criteria.
On Thursday, Secretary Education Muhammad Aslam Kamboh and other concerned officers of the department appeared before Justice Farrukh Irfan Khan. The secretary denied the allegations of favouritism and defended the recruitments.
The court observed that the petition of Zahid Munir and others was pending for the last two years and they were wandering from door to door but no responsible officer of the department had bothered to appear before the court.
“Tell the court, why the change in criteria had not been advertised as it was compulsory,” the judge inquired the EDO, also present in the court.