1. MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- The lady petitioner claims directives of this Court to the respondents in respects of her appointment as teacher in BPS-9 with effect from 5-9-2004. The writ petition is wrapped with the facts that she appeared in the written test, held on 4-4-2004 fixed vide advertisement published in weekly "Bad-e-Shimaal" dated 22-9-2003 to 28-9-2003 by the respondents. The petitioner not only passed written test and interview but also stood 1st in the list of the successful female candidates, prepared by the respondents, keeping in view the each union council.
2. ' The petitioner being on the top of the list, was entitled to be appointed against the vacant post in BPS-9 as teacher in her respective union council, but the respondents malafidely denied appointment of the petitioner on the pretext of some cases being subjudice before Court of law, against the respondents in respect of some vacant posts but not against the vacant post claimed by the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondents appointed one Karamatullah son of Afiyat Khan against vacant post of BPS-9 at Girls Primary School Harcho without making any pretext of Court cases, which shows clear-cut discriminatory attitude of the respondents against the petitioner.
3. ' The respondents Nos.2 and 6 submitted their written comments whereby they conceded the above facts raised by the petitioner in her petition with the contention that the petitioner could not be appointed for the reason that post under question was subject-matter of some cases subjudice before the Court of law.
4. ' We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate-General for respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that (a) since the posts in the union council concerned were vacant as such the posts were advertised for interview to fill the same but when the petitioner stood 1st in the test and interview, the respondents malafidely made a pretext of non-availability of vacant post, but being failed to prove the above false plea, they again deprived the petitioner from her right of appointment on the pretext of cases being subjuudice in the Court of law, but they again failed to prove this plea too (b) that the discriminatory attitude of the respondents towards the petitioner, transpires from the fact that, they have appointed one Karamatullah against the vacant post at Girls Primary School Harcho despite the facts that the cases were subjudice before the courts of law but denied the appointment of the petitioner (c) that since the respondents have admitted the averments of the petition through their written comments as such the petitioner is entitled to be appointed against the stated post with effect from 9-5-2004.
5. ' In response to the above points, the learned Assistant Advocate-General had nothing to say in presence of the admissions made by the respondents however, he stressed on the point that, refusal of appointment of the petitioner was not mala fide but because of some cases being subjudice before the Courts of law.
6. ' We after going through the arguments, are of the opinion that the respondents have admitted the averments of the petition, and have based their excuse on the point of pending of some civil cases before this Court as well as before Civil Courts concerned, hence we deem it proper to visit through the cases which were subjudice before this Court and in other Courts, since the copies of the cases have been attached in the instant file whereby we come to know that one Shamshad Alam had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the male vacant posts invited and tested/interviewed through the advertisement cited in the instant case, but the writ petition calls in question the male vacant posts as such, it cannot be a pretext to be hurdled in the way of appointment of the petitioner as she claims not male vacant post but female second writ petition has been filed before this Court by one Abdul Latif claiming himself on merits for appointment against the male vacant post and advertised / tested / interviewed, the writ has been disposed of on 24-8-2005 by this Court and we are of the opinion that both the above cases having no concern with the appointment of the petitioner.
7. ' The respondents have also attached copies of same cases subjudice before the Court, the 1st among them is a writ petition filed before this Court by one Mst. Syeda Nayara Batool, challenging appointment of one Mst. Shagufta resident of Gilgit City against a post in Astore, the writ petition is least concerned with the instant case as it has not been filed against any vacant post. Second is a copy of a plaint which has been filed before the learned Civil Court, Chillas, by one Mst. Shazia Begum, claiming herself entitled to be appointed the vacant female post against tested/interviewed for, the suit is a bit concerned with the appointment of the petitioner, but the same has been unconditionally withdrawn by the plaintiff on 30-11-2006, the copy of the withdrawal order has been attached by the respondents themselves and if the appointment of the petitioner was pended by the respondent with a sense of paying honour to the Courts of law then they might have appointed the petitioner after withdrawal of the above suit, thus, respondents have acted, malafidely and with discrimination against the petitioner, otherwise their respective and honouring attitude towards Court of law is evident from their conceded statement of appointing one Karamatullah against a female vacant post despite the cases were pending before the Courts of law.
8. The upshot of the above detail discussion, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed against. The stated vacant post in BPS-9 as teacher, hence the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner against the said post, the petitioner is also entitled to get all service benefits including salary with effect from 9-5-2004, however, petitioner's plea of damages is refused.