2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed by the competent authority on the recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee after assessing the eligibility and suitability of the petitioner.

2. That after issuance of appointment letter, the petitioner joined her duties and remained serving the department with devotion. The petitioner was astonished when her services were terminated vide order dated 10-8-2010 on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for the post on the cut-off date, as the petitioner was not having 5 years experience.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that for any irregularity whatsoever, if committed by the department itself, the appointee cannot be harmed, damaged or condemned subsequently when it occurs to the department that it had itself committed some irregularities qua any appointment. This court has on numerous occasions held that for the irregularities committed by the department at itself qua the appointment of a candidate, the appointees cannot be condemned subsequently with the change of the heads in the department or on the upper level. Government is an institution in perpetuity and its orders cannot be reversed simply because the heads have changed. Such act of departmental authorities is all the more unjustified when the candidate is otherwise fully qualified to hold the job. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned order is a nullity in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, writ petition be allowed, impugned order dated 1-8-2010 be declared illegal and be set aside and the respondent-department be directed to reinstate the petitioner.'

4. Conversely, learned A.A.-G. instructed by D.E.O. (Colleges) Sialkot, has vehemently opposed this writ petition and contends that on the cut-off date, since the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed for the post, therefore, writ petition be dismissed.

5. Arguments head. Record perused.

6. Perusal of advertisement published in newspaper dated 16-9-2008 reveals that one of the conditions for the appointment of "Store Keeper" was F.A./F.Sc. with 5 years experience. Perusal of experience letter, dated 10-5-2008 annexed with this writ petition shows that the petitioner joined as "Office Manager" on 1-3-2004 till 30-5-2008. Similarly according to detail market certificate of petitioner, the petitioner completed her Master in Computer Science Program in January, 2004, which means that on the cut-off date, the petitioner was not having the required experience. This amounts to lack of basic, eligibility. Plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if one illegality was committed by the department itself it could not turn around/reversed its own order taking benefit of its own illegality. Once the appointee was qualified to be appointed, his services could not subsequently be terminated on the basis of lapses and irregularities committed by the department itself and such irregularities and laxities committed by the department could be ignored.

7. This court is not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner could not derive any benefit from the above said view of the reason that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner, she lacked basic qualification/experience because on the cut-off date, the petitioner lack the required experience. It is not illegality or irregularity committed by the department but the petitioner herself was not eligible for the post. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the honourable 'Supreme Court in case Muhammad Zahid Iqbal and others v. D.E.O. Mardan and others reported as 2006 SCMR 285.

8. As a result of above discussion, this writ petition is devoid of any substance, same is dismissed. H.B.T./S-239/L Petition dismissed.