' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.--- Applications were invited through advertisement published in Daily Ausaf dated 27-3-2004 by the Executive District Officer, Swabi, for the posts of P.T.C. Female teachers. The candidates qualifying the test and interview were appointed as P.S.T., vide order, dated 20-10-2004 for a period of three years. They assumed their charge and duty and have been working against the said posts since then. When on 15-6-2006 again applications were invited for the same posts for appointment on contract through advertisement published in the daily Mashriq dated 15-6- 2006, the incumbents of the said posts challenged the aforesaid advertisement by filing Writ Petitions Nos.1097, 1101, 1102, 1300, 1526 and 1774 of 2006. These are disposed of by this judgment as identical point of law is involved in all of them.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that when the petitioners were appointed on contract against the vacant posts of PST for a period of 3 years, no fresh applications for appointment on contract against such posts could be invited before the expiration of 3 years and that the impugned act of the respondents being against law and detrimental to the accrued rights of the petitioners is liable to be set at naught.
3. As against that, the learned D.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, by referring to section 21 of the General Clauses Act submitted that where a power is conferred on a functionary or authority to pass an order, it also includes a power to add, to amend, vary or rescind that, therefore, the order rescinding the appointments is not open to any interference.
4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is not disputed that the petitioners were eligible and that then qualified the prescribed test and interview. It is also not disputed that they were appointed on contract for a period of 3 years, vide order dated 20-10-2004 and that they have been working as such ever since then. The question arises, then, why fresh applications are invited for appointment on contract for the same posts when the stipulated period has not yet expired? The learned D.A.-G. Tried to answer the question by referring to section 21 of the General Clauses Act. But this reference to our mind, is misconceived on the face of it. This provision of law, undoubtedly, provides that power to pass an order includes the power to amend, vary or rescind it. But this power being enshrined in the principle of locus poententiae cannot be exercised where the order passed is acted upon and a valuable right has accrued in consequence thereof. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Federation of Pakistan and 61 others 1992 SCM R 1420, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the principle of locus poenitentiae is not available to an authority when the order competently passed by it was acted upon and a valuable right accrued consequent upon that. Such order cannot be recalled or rescinded even under the principle of promissory estoppel. In the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947) KB 130, Lord Dinning while dealing with the principle of promissory estoppel held as under:-- "The law has not been standing still since Jorden-v-Money. There has been a series of decisions over the last fifty years which, although they are said to be cases of estoppel are not really such.
They are cases in which a promise was made which was intended to create legal relations And which, to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made, and which was in fact so acted on. In such cases the Courts have said that the promise must be honoured."
6. His Lordship while reiterating the same principle in the case of Evenden v. Guildford Football Club (1975) 1 QB 1917 observed as follows:-- "Promissory estoppel... Applies whenever a representation is made, whether of fact or law, present or future, which is intended to be binding, intended to induce a person to act upon it and he does act upon it. That is the case here. Mr. Evenden entered into his employment with the football club on the faith of the representation that he would not be prejudiced and that his employment should be regarded as a continuous employment. Acting upon it, he has lost any rights against the supporters' club. The football club cannot be allowed to go back on it. His employment is to be treated as continuous for the whole 19 years. He is entitled to the full redundancy payment of 459 pounds."
7. Government is not an exception to this principle. Its promise or its representation is also binding on it, if and when made or held out. In the case of Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. And others v.
Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCM R 1652, the Honourable Supreme Court after considering the entire case-law on the subject held that the promissory estoppel is also available against the Government and its functionaries, if it is not against the Legislature, against law or a promise not lawfully extended. But where the promise extended, besides being free from any such infirmity has also been acted upon and consequent upon a valuable right has accrued, as in this case, it cannot be recalled or rescinded.
8. When considered in this background, we do not think, the respondents have the power to rescind or recall the order thus passed before the expiration of 3 years. Therefore, we allow these writ petitions, declare the act of the respondents as without jurisdiction and lawful authority and hold that the petitioners are entitled to retain the posts till the expiration of the stipulated period.