HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as teacher on the recommendations of the Departmental Recruitment Committee on 28-12-1995, later on she was terminated, she filed an appeal/representation before the Director Education, Gujranwala and during the pendency of her representation. Writ Petition No,742 of 1999 was allowed, resultantly she and her other colleagues were reinstated into service vide order dated 1-4- 2000.
2. Learned counsel submits that through order dated 19-11-2004, the petitioner was subsequently promoted with effect from 1-1-1997 and is performing her duties without any complaint whatsoever, but surprisingly through the impugned notice dated 29-1-2009 respondents have adopted an indirect way to oust her from service on the alleged point of void appointment order, which is against all canons of justice and fair play, rather it amounts to exploitation.
3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the impugned order is just a notice for personal hearing and nothing else, the petitioner's apprehensions for her removal from service have no basis at all and her writ petition be dismissed on this short ground particularly when there is no final order in the field against her.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The departmental representative, after consulting the record confirms the following:--
(i) The petitioner's appointment of 1995 was made on the recommendations of the Departmental Recruitment Committee.
(ii) The petitioner was terminated from service in the year, 1996, however, through order dated 1-4- 2000 in compliance to the Court's order passed in Writ Petition No,742 of 2000 she along with her colleagues were reinstated into service.
(iii) The petitioner was later on posted as EST (English) vide order dated 26-9-2008.
(iv) The petitioner's appointment as English Teacher is regularized in pursuance to the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
(v) Till today the petitioner's service record is unblemished.
(vi) Neither the petitioner's eligibility against the post she is holding is disputed nor her suitability is under question.
6. When all these facts are admitted from the record, then how after a span of 14 years of her service, her appointment is termed as void one.
7. The departmental representative, despite having clear record insists that there is an allegation that petitioner's appointment of 1995 was void and now in the year, 2009 the department is at liberty to examine the vires of the said appointment order. I am afraid that this sort of attitude of the departmental authorities is mere exploitation and nothing else, which offends the specific provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. Specially, in case of females such like attitude of the departmental authorities cannot be approved, particularly when the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases held:-- "Competent authority could not make the employee sufferer on account of its own lapses and if the stance of the competent authority is that the appointment was made on the political influence, then competent authority should have been bold enough to face political influence allegedly exerted by an employee but the competent authority surrendered and obeyed the capricious and arbitrary directions of their political Bosses without raising the slightest protest which depicts a cowardly and condemnable trend."
' Reference in this respect can be made to the cases reported as Secretary to Government of N.- W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413, Syed Sikandar Ali Shah v. Auditor-General of Pakistan and others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1027, Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing. Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others 2002 SCMR 1034 and Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Peshawar and 2 others v. Abdul Waheed and 7 others 2004 SCMR 303.
8. In another case reported as Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore v. Abbas Ali Malano and another 2004 SCMR 630, the Honourable Supreme Court has held:-- "Authority with change of Government, terminated services of appointees terming them to have been appointed in violation of the rules laid down in human rights case---None of such appointees was lacking requisite qualification or had been appointed by incompetent authority--- Impugned order showed that appointees had been discriminated against other employees, who had been appointed in similar manner on ad hoc basis, but had been subsequently confirmed and regularized---Appointees had served for eleven years and thus, vested right of being confirmed had accrued to them---Supreme Court dismissed petitions and refused leave to appeal."
9. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents Government that the petitioner is not eligible and qualified for the said post, hence following the law supra, the respondent- Government's contentions are repelled.
10. Following the law (supra), I am of the considered view that the impugned notice dated 29-1- 2009 is nothing but an exploitation, the petitioner has put a number of years with the Government department and that too without any complaint whatsoever and now at this belated stage i.e, after a span of fifteen years of her service, issuance of such like notice amounts to colourable exercise of powers and that too in an arbitrary manner. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned notice is set aside and the respondents are directed to desist from such like activities in future, otherwise this court shall have no other option except to direct the higher authorities to proceed against responsible and finalize the proceedings to its logical end.