1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legal sanction of the order, dated 4-7-2005 issued by respondent No,2, whereby the appointment order No,Sec.2(16)
2. 2004, dated 31-1-2005 has been cancelled. The petitioner has called the order to be illegal, mala fide, discriminatory and against natural justice as such she sought its cancellation and also has requested this Court to issue directives to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in her post with effect from the above date.
3. ' The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as such that, the respondent No,2 appointed the petitioner against the post of lady teacher in BPS-7 vide Order No,Sec.2(16)/2004, dated 31-1-2005, resultantly, the petitioner joined the post and received salary from 1-3-2005 to 4-7-2005. The respondent No,2 issued the collective order, dated 4-7-2005, whereby he cancelled all the alleged illegal appointment orders issued in Education Department NAs. The petitioner is also one of the victims of the said order; hence she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order with the contention that, the impugned order is unheard, without legal authority and against fundamental rights of the petitioner.. The respondents were issued notice to file their written comments and also to persue the writ before this Court, in response, they submitted their written comments, whereby they contested the writ petition with the contention that, the then Secretary Education NAs, Gilgit has appointed the petitioner without fulfilling procedure/codal formalities i,e, advertisement written test, DPC/rules/merits etc. ' We probed into the matter and heard the parties to understand and to conclude the crucial legal points arising in the case as under (a) whether the impugned order is against natural justice. (b)
4. Whether the impugned order is well within the competency of the respondent No,2.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is an omnibus like order and the petitioner has not been served any show-cause notice to meet any charge framed against her, as such, the impugned order is hit by the well-settled principle "Audi Altarm Partem".
6. The perusal of written comments show that the impugned order has been passed, without issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner. It is possible that appointment orders as mentioned in the impugned order, might have been passed by the then Secretary Education NAs without resort to the rules and complying with the procedure and without going into the merits, but again under well-recognized principle of natural justice, it was incumbent upon the respondent No,2 to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner enabling her to meet the charge levelling against her. For the reason that, law does not permit an illegal action to cure any illegality committed previously, hence the impugned order is hit by principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" which is recognized by law.
7. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner met the point (b) with the contention that, the appointment order of the petitioner was issued by the competent authority and same has taken effect,, as the petitioner has received her pay from the day of her joining the service upto the date of issuance of impugned order as such a very valuable and vested right has accrued to the petitioner, and consequently, the respondent No,2 has become incompetent to cancel the appointment order. The learned counsel for the respondents urged in response that, since the appointment order of the petitioner was issued, ignoring the rules, merits and procedure as such the impugned order was well within the competency of the respondent No,2.
8. ' We looked into relevant law to ascertain the above point, and sections 16 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, enable us to find out an answer to the above point and guided us that "authority competent to rake an order has power to undo it, but the order cannot he withdrawn or rescinded once it has taken effect and certain rights are created in favour of any individual, furthermore, appointment order once has taken effect, it creates vested right in favour of the appointee even the order has not been passed on merits". In the present case it has been conceded by the respondents that, the petitioner has attended her duty and has been paid salary for her services, after issuance of the appointment order. Therefore, the appointment order has taken its effect and a vested right has accrued to the petitioner. We are supported to take this view, by the case-law reported in 1992 SCMR SC (Pak) page 1652 and PLJ 1982 Tr.C.
9. 165.
10. ' Last but not the least, this Court has observed in many cases wherein, the administrative officers have passed orders in violation of rules, procedures and merits, later on, it has been tried to cancel or rescind the same after the orders lave become effective, but no any action has been taken against any authority which abused the powers vested with him and this practice is astonishing for us.
11. ' The peroration of the above discussion is that, the impugned order, dated 4-7-2005 is without legal sanction as such it is set aside and the order No,Sec.Education 2(16)/2004, dated 31-1-2005 is maintained, the petitioner is entitled to hold the post of lady teacher in BPS-7. She is also entitled to all the service benefits including the pay from the dated 4-7-2005 upto the date, directives of this Court are complied and onwards. File. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.