2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

TARIQ JAVAID, J.

Grievance of the petitioner is that in response to an advertisement she applied for post of SESE (Arabic) in Government Girls Primary School, Chak No.533-TDA Tehsil Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh. It is maintained that according to merit list the petitioner was at top of the list and vide letter dated 3-8-2009 she was appointed on the said post which she joined on 4-8-2009. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner vide letter No.6226/Admn. dated 28-8-2009, the appointment order issued by the respondents vide order No.4939 dated 3-8-2009 was withdrawn. It is alleged that withdrawal of her appointment order was at the behest of respondent No.4 who had managed the same clandestinely with mala fide intention in connivance with the remaining respondents. Allegedly respondent No.4 neither filed an application for the post nor her name appeared on the merit list nor she appeared in any interview. Due to her influence her name has been entered and she has been appointed in lieu of the petitioner.

2. Comments were filed on behalf of the respondents whereby it is maintained that Higher Education Commission considered the Sanad "Shahadat-ul-Almia Fil Uloomal Arabic Wal Islamia awarded by Tanzeem-ul-Madaris Lahore is equivalent to M.A., Arabic/Islamic Studies" for the purpose of teaching Arabic and Islamic Studies in Colleges and Universities, hence the Government of the Punjab has issued Notification No.SO(S-IV)2-34 of 2008 dated Lahore, the 14th April, 2009. Because of said Notification respondent No.4 was entitled to be considered and as such she was appointed on the said post.

3. The reply filed by the respondents is not satisfactory. According to advertisement, copy of which has been placed on record, the only qualification required was B.A. Arabic as optional subject along with Arabic teaching course from Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. The petitioner being M.A. in Arabic was qualified for this post and she was rightly selected. If respondent No.4 had not been selected due to the negligence of the respondents then it is not open for them to re-call appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioners, who, even otherwise, is on top of the merit list whereas name of respondent No.4 appeared at Serial No.41 of the merit list. In any event, even if the respondent No.4 had better merit than the petitioner still once the petitioner has been appointed she has secured vested right and her services could not be terminated at the pleasure of the respondents. No lawful reasons are shown for re-calling her appointment Order No.6226 dated 28-8-2009, the same is held to be illegal and without lawful authority. This petition is allowed and petitioner shall be re-instated with all back-benefits. H.B.T./S-93/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.