1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi P L D 1969 S C 407 and Raja Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of the Punjab 1981 S C M R 523 rel. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner. M. Khakan Babar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th April, 1988. The facts are that the petitioner applied to the Authority for appointment as Assistant Director, against a vacant post. Earlier he was employed with the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (Urban) Lahore as Personnel Officer. By means of letter No. Admn./1600, dated 4‑6‑1986 (Annexure `A') issued by the Administration Directorate of the Authority in relaxation of L.DA. (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, the petitioner was offered the post of Assistant Director in NPS‑

17. In the matter of conditions of service and discipline he is to be governed by the said Regulations and further his services are terminable any time, without notice. The petitioner accepted this offer, reported for duty to the Authority, was given the charge of the office of the Assistant Director and is still working as such. 2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the Office Order dated 17‑6‑1986 (Annexure B') whereby it was directed that his appointment would be considered on ad hoc basis. The office order runs as under:‑‑ "In supersession to this Office Order No. Admn/600, dated 4‑6‑1986, the appointment of Mr. Abdul Hameed son of Abdul Ghafoor as Assistant Director should be considered on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months." The ad hoc appointment has been extended further.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the principle of locus poenitentiae as discussed in Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi P L D 1969 S C 407 and Raja Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of the Punjab 1981 S C M R

523. It is argued that there was no defect in the petitioner's appointment, as the relaxation of the Regulations was within the competence of the Chairman of the Authority. He pointed out that the offer made by the respondent Authority was not only accepted but also acted upon by the petitioner inasmuch as he‑resigned, left his job in Road Transport Corporation, joined L.D.A. performed his duties as Assistant Director and was also paid his salary. It was submitted that the Authority could recall the appointment letter or modify its terms till some decisive step was taken. He submitted that since the appointment order was implemented and legal rights created in his favour, on the basis thereof it was no longer open to the Authority to withdraw or change the terms of the petitioner's appointment, to his detriment.

4. There is much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Indeed his arguments find ample support from the precedents cited by him. It is well‑settled that the authority competent to pass an order can also rescind it but once the order has been given legal effect, such a power cannot be exercised. In the instant case, a reference to Regulation No. 24 of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978 will indicate that the Chairman of the Authority has ample power to relax the provisions of any of these Regulations. The petitioner's appointment in relaxation of the rules, thus, did not suffer from any infirmity. In fact no defect in the appointment order, has been pointed out. On the other hand, as already observed, this order had already been effectively implemented and valuable rights conferred on the petitioner. He, therefore, could not be denuded of these rights and his regular appointment though on temporary basis, converted into an ad hoc appointment. The Authority, therefore, acted illegally in changing the terms of the petitioner's appointment. For all these reasons, the writ petition is accepted the impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A‑925/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted