KAZIM ALI MALIK, J. - I find, it convenient to bring on record the facts giving rise to this Constitutional Petition, which were not in dispute or disputable. Most Kausar 'Parveen, petitioner, secured her.
Appointment as E.S.E. Teacher, Government Girls Community Model School Chak No..18-DB, District Mianwali vide order No. 3266/ADMN, dated 25.9.2002 by District Education Officer (W) Elementary Education, Mianwali. On 15.9.2006, she was appointed against a vacant post of S.E.S.E. By District Education Officer (W-EE) Layyah on contract basis. For the month of October, 2006 the petitioner received salary from Mianwali as well as Layyah. At the time of her appointment at Layyah the petitioner produced Service Experience Certificate bearing. Stamp and signature of Assistant Education Officer and District Education Officer, Mianwali to the effect that the performed her duties honestly during her three years' tenure. The said Service Experience Certificateon its verification was found bogus. District Recruitment Committee, Layyah headed by D.C.O, cancelled the contract of Mst. Kausar Parveen vide order dated 20.3.2007 and appointed Mst: Parveen Mukhtar/respondent No. 4 against the vacant post, however, on the same terms and conditions.
2. Kausar Parveen, petitioner, has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and has called'in question her removal from service on the ground that she had been condemned unheard and that being possessed with required experience and qualification there was no legal and factual justification to terminate the contract arbitrarily, .Lt was also argued that the petitioner refunded the pay, which had been withdrawn in her name from Mianwali and that in a similar case laid before this Court through Writ Petition No. 5396 of 2007, the operation of order, impugned therein^had been suspended.
3. The facts of Writ Petition No. 539 of 2006 are altogether different from that of the case in hand.
The petitioner secured employment on contract basis at Layyah during subsistence of her first appointment on contract basis at Mianwali, lt is true that she refunded the pay on21.12.2006, but the fact remained 4hat she received salary twice for the same period against her posting of Mianwali and Layyah. Furthermore, the Experience produced by her while securing employment at Layyah was found bogus on its verification. Keeping in view'all the above-noted, facts it cannot be said with any stretch- of imagination that the impugned order adverse to the petitioner is arbitrary and whimsical.
4. For what has been stated above I dismiss this writ petition.