MULTAN, Dec 24: The Untied Teachers Association (UTA) of the provincial technical education department has filed a petition with the Supreme Court against the judgment passed by a single bench of the Lahore High Court that the Technical Education and Vocational Training Ordinance had protection under the Provisional Constitutional Order.

The appeal against the LHC judgment is filed jointly by UTA joint secretary Syed Hussain Naqvi, a junior instructor at the Government College of Technology, Multan, and Abdul Waheed Khan, a senior instructor at the same college.

The petitioners have raised following law points in their appeal:

Whether the governor can repeat an ordinance after its expiry under Article 128 of the Constitution for an unlimited time?

When during the lifetime of an ordinance provincial assembly assembles twice and the ordinance cannot get the ascent of the house, whether the governor can re-promulgate the ordinance? Whether the governor has any authority to frame the rules under the PCO? Will such rules, if framed, not be void?

Whether no law can be declared null and void after the PCO?

Whether a private person/individual can use the funds from the exchequer and that can he be made the master of the fate of government employees?

The petitioners have held seven people/authorities respondents including the government of Punjab, chief secretary, provincial secretaries of the finance, industries and higher education, director, technical education and Tevta chairman Sikander Mustafa Khan.

Stating brief history of the matter, the petitioners argued that any ordinance had to be placed before the concerned forum, in this case the provincial assembly, within the three months of its promulgation otherwise it ceases to exist after the expiry of that period. They said after the promulgation of the first Tevta ordinance (XXIV, dated: 5.6.1999) the provincial assembly met twice but the ordinance could not get its approval.

But, the ordinance was re-promulgated on September 4, 1999, in violation of the law laid down by the apex court and the spirit of the constitution. Arguing on the LHC judgment, the petitioners claimed that any ordinance passed by the governor without lawful authority could not attain the status of law and could not be permitted to demand the protection under PCO. “Our case had not been understood properly by the learned LHC judge,” they pleaded.

They apprehended that under Tevta their service structure was being destroyed and the chances of promotion were being mitigated after the change of nomenclature of the higher posts in the technical education department. They said the Tevta chairman was a private individual who had been given the powers to hire and fire government officials/public servants and to utilize the state resources.