' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that respondents Nos.1 to 7 invited applications for appointment of the teachers through public notice published in "Daily Khabrein" dated 7-6-2002. The petitioner and others appeared for interview and test held by the respondents. Respondents Nos.1 to 7 issued appointment letter to the petitioner for one of the posts but subsequently did not allow her to join. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a complaint before the Provincial Ombudsman, who accepted the same vide order dated 15-7-2003. The respondents being aggrieved filed a representation under section 32 of the Provincial Ombudsman Act, 1997, which was accepted vide order dated 26-1-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured vested right after issuance of the appointment letter by the respondents and the principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted and the Provincial Ombudsman has accepted the complaint of the petitioner on this ground whereas the same is reversed by the appellate authority without application of mind. He further submits that the petitioner secured higher marks as compared to respondent No.8 as is evident from the marks sheet prepared by the respondents i.e. The merit list. He further submits that respondent No.8 has not submitted application with regard to the institution inquestion, therefore, to issue appointment letter in favour of respondent No.8 is not in accordance with the public notice issued by the respondents in the Daily Newspaper "Khabrein" as well as in accordance with the policy of the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner is not insisted that the petitioner be given appointment in the institution inquestion, the respondents may adjust the petitioner in any other institution as the petitioner appeared in the interview and test held by the respondents and passed the same .He further submits that the petitioner is M.A. Economics whereas respondent No.8 and other candidates having less academic career as the qualification of respondent No.8 and other candidates are not exactly to the qualification of the petitioner as the petitioner is M.A. Economics along with the degree of B.Sc. Therefore, action of the respondents is without lawful authority.
3. The learned law officer submits that letter was issued to the petitioner by mistake and the same was not acted upon and this fact was duly noted by the appellate authority and reversed the recommendations of the Provincial Ombudsman with cogent reasons. He further urges that the petitioner is not having the degree of science subject as the petitioner is M.A. Economics whereas the post inquestion is relating to the subject of science, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed against the post inquestion. He further submits that respondents have attached the merit list in the shape of Annexure-R/2 according to which the petitioner is at serial No.4 and secured 60 marks whereas other three candidates at serial No.1 to 3 secured 73, 67, and 65 marks respectively, therefore, petitioner is not on the merit list, therefore, impugned order of the appellate authority is based upon true facts. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunals below while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed questions of facts in Constitutional jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitioner has not impleaded all the necessary parties, therefore, Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Kh. Muhammad Afzal, Legal Advisor of respondents Nos.4 to 6 submits that the petitioner submitted her application for the post inquestion with regard to the following three institutions:--
(i) Govt. Girls High School, Haveli Kabli Mall, Lahore.
(ii) Govt. New Asifa Model Girls H/S Said Mitha Bazar.
(iii) Govt. Modern Girls High School, Qila Gujjar Singh Lahore.
' The respondents prepared the list of selectees for the post of Secondary School Educator on contract basis, which is attached with the report and parawise comments as Annexure-R/1, according to which the petitioner's name appeared at serial No.51 whereas the name of Mubashra Munir is appeared at serial No.54. Subsequently according to the policy, the respondents prepared the list with regard to each institution where the candidates had applied for the post inquestion.
According to the merit list of Government Girls High School, Haveli Kabli Mall, Lahore the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.4 and the petitioner secured 60 marks whereas the last candidate, who was appointed respondent No.8 secured 67 marks, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed in Govt. Girls High School, Haveli Kabli Mall, Lahore. The merit list with regard to Govt. New Asifa Model Girls H/S Said Mitha Bazar the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.5 whereas the first position secured by the candidates were issued appointment letters.
Similarly the petitioner secured 5th position in Govt. Modern Girls High School, Qila Gujjar Singfi Lahore where there is only one vacancy, the Candidate who secured 91 marks was appointed, therefore, there is no vested right accrued to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that according to the list of the respondents the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.51 and the respondents have issued appointment letter to Mubashra Munir whose name is at serial No.54, therefore, action of the respondents is not in accordance with law.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. It is admitted fact that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunals below while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution as per law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- ' Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman and another v. M.
Massadaq Naseem Sindoo. (PLD 1973 Lahore 600.
' Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and others (PLD 1964 S.C. 260).
' The appellate authority with cogent reasons after application of mind has reversed the findings of the Provincial Ombudsman, which is in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jalal-ud-din's case (PLD 1992 SC 207). Merely issuance of letter to the petitioner to attend the ceremony does not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner in terms of law laid down in Jalal-ud-Din's case supra.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
However, there is one aspect, which is highlighted in the report and parawise comments of the respondents, there are four lists attached by the respondents with the report and parawise comments according to which the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.51 whereas the name of one Mubashra Munir appeared at serial No.54 in list of selectees as is evident from AnnexureR/1 attached with report and parawise comments. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not impleaded said Mubashra Munir in the Constitutional petition as respondent, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramiz-ul-Haq's case (PLD 1992 SC 221). Merely an eye view of the aforesaid entries bring the case in the area that the respondents have not acted within the parameters prescribed in Article 4 of the Constitution. Our Constitution is based on trichotomy as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zia-ur-Rehman's case (PLD 1973 SC 49) and Mian Nawaz Sharif's case (PLD 1993 SC 473). The Honourable Supreme Court while interpreting Article 5(2) of the Constitution.. Has laid down a principle that no body is above the Constitution. In case there is slightest possibility of deviation from the law then it is termed as mala fide because the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down a principle where the authority has exercised power in such a manner, which creates doubts then it is termed as mala fide as per law laid down by the Honourbale Supreme Court in Government of West Pakistan and another v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14). The Honourbale Supreme Court has laid down parameters with regard to the functions of the public functionaries to act within the framework of Constitution and law in Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab and 2 others (PLD 1995 SC 530). In this view of the matter, let a copy of the writ petition be sent to the Secretary concerned, who is directed to constitute a committee to probe into the matter whether there is any injustice has been done with the petitioner or not? He is directed to constitute a high powered committee to probe into the matter and in case the committee finds any person, who has taken the law in his hand then he is directed to proceed against the said person under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and in case the committee finds that any injustice has been done with the petitioner then he is directed to accommodate the petitioner in accordance with law. He is directed to complete this process preferably within three months and submit report to the Deputy Registrar Judicial. The learned law officer and Kh. Muhammad Afzal, legal advisor of respondents are directed to notify the order to the concerned Secretary for necessary action and compliance. Office is directed to provide a copy of this order to the aforesaid law officers for onward transmission to the Secretary concerned for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.