' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J---Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 29-1- 2001 by Respondent No,3 issued on the appeal filed by the petitioner wherein it is acknowledged that the appointment letter of the petitioner was never cancelled by the concerned authorities on account of an error. Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was admittedly never terminated from the post of an SVT. One thousand other teachers holding the same post whose appointments had been cancelled en bloc were restored to their posts by order of the Chief Minister Punjab during his visit of District Sialkot. The written comments by the Respondent No,1 state that no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner has been given by the Chief Minister and therefore no action has been taken to assign duties to her.
2. The stand taken by the Respondent No,1 suffers from the flaws. Firstly, without having been terminated from service, the petitioner did not have to be reinstated and therefore no direction by the Chief Minister in her case was necessary. Secondly, if one thousand similarly placed teachers have been restored to office, there is no reason for the Respondent No,1 to discriminate against the petitioner for assigning her work in the district.
3. The Respondent No,3 is accordingly directed to assign duties to the petitioner as a SVT since admittedly she has never been terminated from service. If on the other hand, there are any proceedings to be taken against the petitioner, the District Education Officer, Narowal may commence the same subject to notice and hearing to the petitioner and strictly in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within a period of two months.
4. With the foregoing observation the petition is disposed of.