' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- Through this order I propose to dispose of the Writ Petitions Nos.15444, 15565, 15590, 21643, 19303 and 18632 of 2009 involving common questions of law and facts.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis in hand are; that the respondents issued an advertisement in the press in September, 2008 seeking applications for appointment to various posts mentioned in the said advertisement. It is the case of the petitioners in all the above- mentioned Constitutional petitions that in response to the aforesaid advertisement they submitted their applications for appointment to various jobs as advertised. The petitioners who claim to be duly qualified for their respective jobs contended that their applications were duly processed and individual letters of appointment on contract basis issued. Subsequently, the services of each of the petitioners were terminated vide separate letter dated 29-7-2009 claiming that such termination was in pursuant to the order of the Provincial Ombudsman dated 17-11-2008 and 20- 12-2008. Through these Constitutional petitions the orders of termination of the respective petitioners have been challenged.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to an advertisement in the press the petitioners submitted applications and were subjected to the process and scrutiny as prescribed by law. Each and every one of the petitioners it is contended admittedly possessed the qualification prescribed in the said advertisement. If there is any irregularity in the appointments the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for it and the person committing the irregularity must bear the burden. It is further contended that the persons appointed with the petitioners came up for scrutiny before this Court and were upheld vide order dated 12-2-2009 passed in Writ Petition No,16320 of 2009. It is added that even otherwise the petitioners have been denied the right of hearing.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab has controverter the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. Adds that the matter of appointments of the petitioners is not a case of irregularity but of rank fraud and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the person responsible for such fraudulent recruitments. Adds that the orders of this Court relied upon were also fraudulently obtained as the person guilty of the fraudulent appointments appeared on behalf of the respondent in order to hide his own wrong doings. Even otherwise they said order has been challenged in appeal which is pending adjudication. Learned A.A.-G. Further contends that the appointments were on contract basis which were even otherwise liable to termination; hence, no vested right has accrued to the petitioners which could be agitated before this Court, therefore, in the above context it is contended that in view of the fraudulent nature of the appointment that too on contract basis the petitioners were not entitled to a notice nor are these Constitutional petitions maintainable.
5. Heard. Record perused. It appears that the persons aggrieved challenged the appointments of the petitioners or at least some of them before the Provincial Ombudsman. It appears that the contentions raised found favour with the Provincial Ombudsman who directed that further action be taken after granting hearing to the persons to be affected i.e, the present petitioners. No doubt, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis but the orders/letters impugned do not constitute termination simpliciter but are purportedly issued pursuant to the orders of the Provincial Ombudsman, which categorically provides right of hearing to the petitioners which admittedly has not been granted. In this view of the matter the impugned orders/letters of termination cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to proceed further in the matter after affording of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Needless to say that nothing in this order would prohibit the respondents from exercising any right available to them in terms of the contract of the petitioners or the law. All these petitions are accepted in the above terms.