' MUZAFFAR ALI, J---This Writ Petition assails the office order dated 26-10-2004, with the contention that, the respondents advertised the post of Lecturer Zoology in BPS-17 through Daily Jang and since the petitioner has passed her Master Degree in Zoology in 1st Division from the University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi therefore, she applied for the said post and the petitioner was short- listed for the test interview and the petitioner was duly tested/interviewed on 23-9-2004, by the Selection Board and the petitioner stood 1st in the same, therefore, she was appointed against the advertised post and the petitioner duly joined and assumed her duties as Lecturer Zoology, but all of a sudden and without any notice to the petitioner the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents. The petitioner claimed the office order dated 26-10-2004, to be illegal, mala fide and also against her fundamental rights.
' On the other hand the respondents through their written comments raised some preliminary objections, like that, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition, has no cause of action etc. On facts they admitted the Paras 2 to 8 of the writ petition, but denied the Paras 1,9 to 12 of the petition, the main contention of the respondents to cancel the appointment order of the petitioner is that, she has failed to produce her final result of MSc. (Zoology).
' We heard both the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record of the, case and of the view that, the impugned order is against in violation of law maxim: Audi alteram partem which recognizes the right of personal hearing to a person against whom an adverse order is to be passed is to be equated with fundamental right and an adverse order made without affording him an opportunity of personal hearing is to be treated as a void order and the said principle is always deemed to be embedded in the statute and even if there is no such specific or express provision, it would be deemed to be one of the parts of the statute and even the rules or laws under which the person is treated and being passed an adverse order against him, stipulate no need of notice, then too the principle of natural justice demands hearing of the person, before passing an adverse order against him. This principle of natural justice could only be avoided when it is proved that the person against whom the adverse order is being passed has no vested right to be heard. In the case in hand the petitioner has vested right to be heard for the reasons that, she did not conceal any fact from the respondents and stated in her application for the vacant post that "She had not attached the M.Sc. Completion certificate which would be provided very shortly".
The respondents accepted the application of the petitioner and short-listed her for interview and test and she qualified the same and the Selection Committee recommended her resultantly she was appointed vide Office Order No,K.I.U-Estt-2(3)/2002/7961 dated 27th September, 2004, the said order is clubbed with terms and conditions, but production of her final result of M.Sc (Zoology) within a stipulated period has not been mentioned in the terms and conditions of her appointment.
All the above facts show that, the petitioner, has not concealed any fact nor has acted illegally, therefore the Principle of "natural justice" attracts the case in holding this view we are supported by following caselaws:--
1. 2005 SCM R 1814
2. 1994 SCMR 2234
3. 2000 SCM R 907
4. 2002 SCM R 769 ' The upshot of the above discussions is that the impugned order No,K.I.U. Estt-2(3)/2004/8238-43 declared void and the petitioner is allowed to continue her duties as Lecturer Zoology in BPS-17 with effect from the date of her joining the same, but subject to production of her final result of M.Sc.
Zoology to the respondent concerned.