' SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through the instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the order dated 14-11-2009, whereby her services were terminated, as illegal, violative of Contract Recruitment Policy, 2004 and without any legal effect. The petitioner has also prayed for passing a direction to the respondents for regularization of her services in accordance with Notification No,OS (O&M) 5-3/2004 Contract (MP), dated 14-10-2009 .
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner, in response to an advertisement published in Daily Express, applied to the Punjab Forestry Research Institute, Faisalabad, for appointment against the post of Research Assistant, on 14-5-2009. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Research Assistant (B.S.11) for three years on contract basis, vide order dated 24-9-2009, and in consequence thereof, she joined her duties on 26-9-2009. The services of the petitioner were terminated, vide order dated 14-11-2009, which, according to the petitioner, was delivered to her on 27-11-2009. The petitioner submitted that no show cause notice was issued to her prior to the termination of her services, and she had been condemned unheard. The petitioner also claimed that her services were liable to be regularized in pursuance of Notification No, Os (O&M) 5-3/2004 Contract (MP), dated 14-10-2009, whereas the same were terminated illegally. In this connection, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Punjab Central Zone, Lahore, as well as the Chief Minister, Punjab, on 20-11- 2009 and 26-11-2009, respectively, but with no result. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Respondent No,1 submitted report and parawise comments wherein he contended that the petitioner was recruited on contract basis as a stop-gap arrangement against one of the posts, which temporarily fell vacant, due to the promotions of Muhammad Mehboob-ur-Rehman and Abdul Khaliq, as Assistant Research Officers on acting charge basis. He contended that the contract appointment could be terminated on one month's notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof by either side without assigning any reason, according to Contract Recruitment Policy of Government of the Punjab, 2004. He maintained that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of Clause 17 of the contract order, which reads as follows: "That the interpretation of these conditions and the decision of the authority in this behalf shall be final."
' The respondent denied that the services of the present petitioner could be regularized, as no regular vacancy of Research Assistant is available. The respondent asserted that there was no need for issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner prior to termination of her services, according to Clause 8 of her appointment letter dated 24-9-2009.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after issuance of the appointment order, joining of the service by the petitioner, thereon, a valuable right had accrued in her favour which could not be recalled in view of well-established principle of locus poenitentiae. He further submitted that no show cause notice was issued prior to the passing of the termination order and as such the petitioner was condemned unheard. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Rana Asif Nadeem v. Executive District Officer, Education, District Nankana and 2 others (2008 PLC (C.S). 715).
5. Conversely, the learned A.A.-G. Submitted that the appointment of the present petitioner was made purely on contract basis, which could be terminated on one month notice or on payment of one month salary in lieu thereof by either side without assigning any reason as provided in Clause 8 of the appointment letter of the present petitioner dated 24-9-2009. He further submitted that the decision of the authority in respect of the interpretation of the conditions of the appointment letter of the present petitioner, dated 24-9-2009 shall be considered to be final, according to Clause 17 of the said appointment letter. He categorically denied the right of the present petitioner for regularization of her services in accordance with the notification of the Government of the Punjab, dated 14-10-2009.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused
7. Admittedly, the present petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant (BS-11) purely on contract, vide order dated 24-9-2009, in accordance with the Contract Recruitment Policy, 2004 of Government of the Punjab. Not only according to Contract Recruitment Policy, 2004 but also in view of appointment letter of the present petitioner, dated 24-9-2009, her contractual appointment could be terminated on one month's notice or on payment of one months' salary in lieu thereof by either side without assigning any reason. Furthermore, the present petitioner was appointed on contract basis against a post, which became vacant temporarily and the same has now been filed. As such, there is no vacant sanctioned post against which the petitioner could be allowed to serve and draw her salary. The petitioner joined service on the terms incorporated in her appointment letter dated 24-9-2009 and now she is estopped from challenging the validity of the said terms and conditions. The respondent was not under an obligation to give a show cause notice to the present petitioner prior to the termination of her A services either according to Contract Recruitment Policy, 2004 or appointment letter dated 24-9-2009. The respondent allowed the payment of one month pay to the present petitioner in lieu of one month notice while terminating her services, vide letter dated 14-11-2009. The facts of the case, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are different from the case in hand. In the cited case, the appointments were terminated/cancelled due to some irregularities in the original orders of appointments, whereas in the present case, the services of the present petitioner have not been terminated due to any irregularity in her appointment. As a matter of fact the appointing authority has exercised its authority as provided in the Contract Recruitment Policy, 2004 as well as pursuant to the terms and conditions of the appointment of the present petitioner, vide letter dated 24-9- 2009. Even otherwise, it was a contractual appointment and both the parties were legally bound to follow the terms and conditions of the contract. The sanctity of the contract should be maintained by the parties. It is also worth consideration that the post against which the present petitioner was appointed purely on contract basis is no longer available. Furthermore, the present petitioner had no right to claim regularization of her services on the basis of notification dated 14-10-2009 as well as according to Contract Recruitment Policy, 2004. The petitioner had an adequate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the competent authority, which she has already availed.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons the instant petition is devoid of any force, and the same is accordingly dismissed.