2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23-7-2010 passed by respondent No.1/Executive District Officer (Health) Pakpattan whereby the services of the petitioner/Mst. Saima Hameed L. H. V, BHU 16-EB Tehsil Arifwala District Pakpattan has been withdrawn from the date of her appointment and this order is sought to be set aside by the petitioner with the further prayer that she be reinstated in service with all back-benefits.

2. In response to the advertisement in the newspaper `The Daily Khabrain Lahore' dated 14th October 2008, the petitioner/Mst. Saima Hameed applied for the advertised post of Lady Health Visitor. She was called for interview and finally selected. Appointment letter dated 24-12-2008 was also issued. She joined the service w.e.f. 1-1-2009. Her medical fitness was also conducted. However all of a sudden; respondent No.1/E.D.O.(H) Pakpattan vide letter dated 23-7-2010 terminated her service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while withdrawing her service, the petitioner was neither served with any show-cause notice nor she was provided an opportunity of being heard. Even provision of the contract was not adhered to which has rendered the impugned order liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, A.A.-G. on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition with vehemence stating that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is the domain of the competent authority either to, retain the petitioner or to withdraw her services because she was over age of more than one year at the time of her induction in service.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.-G. on behalf of the respondents and have also gone through the documents available on the file.

6. Perusal of the advertisement for the post of Lady Health Visitor in the newspaper `The Daily Khabrain Lahore' dated 14-10-2008 reveals that no age limit of the candidate for the post of Lady Health Visitor has been given in it. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was medically examined. The medical fitness certificate was issued in her favour by the Medical Superintendent D.H.Q. Hospital Pakpattan in which not only her age was mentioned but also her date of birth was given. In this way the fact that the petitioner was overage was very much in the knowledge of the appointing authority. Even then the petitioner was appointed. According to the experience certificate dated 25-1-2010 issued by the Executive District Officer (H) Pakpattan, the petitioner had earlier worked as Lady Health Visitor in the health department w.e.f. 1-6-1998 to 30-6-2000 and from 10-12-2002 to 25-6-2006. In this backdrop age limit of the petitioner was impliedly relaxed or ignored or was not found to be applicable in her case by the respondent No.1. After appointment and joining of the petitioner, a valuable right has accrued in her favour which cannot be recalled in view of the well-established principle' of locus poenitentiae. In this respect reliance can be placed on Liaqat Ali Memon and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1994 SC 556, Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. and another v. Muhammad Nawaz and another PLD 1996 SC 837, Rukhsar Ali and 11 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Education, Peshawar and three others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1453, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and others v. Shahzad Farooq Malik and another 2004 SCMR 158 and Chairman/Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and another v. Nisar Ahmad Bhutto 2005 SCMR

57. As such the impugned order being violative of law (supra) cannot hold the field.

7. There is another aspect of the case. Even if it is presumed that at the time of appointment, the then authority made illegal or irregular appointment, even then the petitioner cannot be made responsible for the same and cannot be made to suffer. It is, also a matter of record D that before withdrawing the service of the petitioner, neither any show-cause notice was given to her nor she has been provided any opportunity of hearing. Even the provision of the contract has also not been adhered to.

8. In view of above, the order dated 23-7-2010 passed by respondent No.ITE.D.O.(H) Pakpattan is illegal and against the principle of natural justice and the same is set aside. The petitioner is reinstated in service from date of her joining the duty with all back-benefits. A.R.K./S-191/L Petition accepted.