' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J---The short point involved for consideration in this petition is that appointment orders in favour of the four petitioners were issued on 8-10-2005 by the competent authority but subsequently, these appointments orders were withdrawn on 16-11-2005.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not heard before their appointment orders were withdrawn which represents a serious injury to their rights. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said appointment orders were issued against the rules. The petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date of their applications but had it subsequently on the date of their interview. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rebuttal adds that even if the petitioners appointment orders were illegal, the rule laid down in Muhammad Shoaib and 2 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through the Collector, D.I. Khan and others (2005 SCM R 85) requires that such orders cannot be revoked without hearing and the employees under such illegal appointment orders cannot be punished for the wrongs of the appointing authority.
3. The foregoing plea of estoppel and locus poeintentiae, aimed at excluding adverse action against the petitioners, involves a defence relating to the merits. Presently, however, a valuable right belonging to the petitioners has been revoked by the impugned action without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Unless excluded by law, the rules of natural justice require that an order passed by a competent authority conferring rights on third parties cannot be recalled without serving a show-cause notice, granting hearing and giving valid grounds for the decision taken. Otherwise, not only would vested rights be subject to whim but also would the sanctity and force of the orders of the competent authority. Both consequence are not countenanced by the law.
4. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16-11-2005 which were passed in violation of the rules of natural justice are declared to be illegal. As a result thereof the appointment orders of the petitioners stand revived. The respondents are, however, at liberty to take lawful proceedings against the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law after giving them an opportunity of proper hearing to defend themselves. Petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms.