' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayer:- "For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and order dated 15-12-2009 titled as "withdrawal of appointment order as E.S.E. May kindly be set aside by declaring the same, having been issued with misuse power of authority, issued with mala fide intention, having no value on the subject and in view of the same order dated 31-10-2009 may kindly be restored in the best interest of justice and fairplay."
2. The facts succinctly required for determination of this writ petition as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner in pursuance of an advertisement applied for various posts under the Chief Minister, Education Section, Reforms Programme on temporary basis for five years. The petitioner being permanent resident of Chak No,22/J.B. Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh was selected and after medical examination and interview, she was finally appointed as Elementary School Educator vide appointment letter dated 31-10-2009 and posted at Chak No,292 Government Primary School, Toba Tek Singh. She reported for joining on 7-11-2009 and thereafter, on 15-12-2009 respondent No,1 withdrew her appointment order dated 31-10-2009 with immediate effect without assigning any reason. Neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor an opportunity of hearing had been afforded to her and she has been condemned unheard and there were no charges against the petitioner. It is further stated that the same has been made to please the political figure of the area in order to facilitate them to make appointments as such, the withdrawal order dated 15-12-2009 is totally illegal, having been issued with mala fide intention and misuse of the authority; therefore, the same be set aside and the petitioner's appointment order dated 31-10- 2009 be restored.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the report and parawise comments of the respondents the allegation against the petitioner is that "during the scrutiny of record it was found that the qualification of the petitioner was B.A. B.Ed. And M.A. Education while she was awarded 5.54 additional marks against M.A. Qualification. As per recruitment policy, the qualification of M.A. Education is professional qualification. She is not entitled for the grant of additional marks of qualification of M.A. Education. It was a clerical mistake which has been rectified. After rectification in merit list, she lost her name. So her appointment order has been withdrawn and next eligible candidate according to the merit list has been appointed against said post." Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has contended that her qualification of M.A.
Education fully entitles her to the additional marks and the same is equivalent to M.A. Degree in other subjects and is fully recognized and is upto the criteria of the requirement of the respondents as Master in Arts of Education from Allama lqbal Open University, Islamabad as per the own certificate of the University is not a professional degree but it is a degree of Arts in Education. The professional degree issued by the AIOU at Master level is M.Ed. For which entry requirements is B.A.
B.Ed. But for admission to M.A. (Education) entry requirement/simple B.A. As such, the objection raised by the respondents is not substantiated by the University Authorities. Moreover, in similar cases this Court in Writ Petition No,6513 of 2008 allowed the same while accepting the writ petition and had declared such withdrawal order as illegal and no appeal has been filed by the respondents against the said order. It is further submitted that after the appointment order has been made, the petitioner has accrued vested right on the principle of natural justice and withdrawing of the appointment order is held by the Apex Court to be against the principle of natural justice as propounded in Asim Khan and others v. Zahir Shah and others 2007 SCM R 1451.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General contended that inadvertently the petitioner had been allowed additional marks on both her degrees i.e, of B.A./B.Ed. As well as M.A.
Education, as such, on the withdrawal of the additional marks granted to the petitioner for her M.A.
Education degree, the petitioner's total marks fell from 58.42 to 52.19 as such on the merit list she was placed at fifth number from bottom. In view of the same, the appointment order of the petitioner had been withdrawn.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently controverted the stand of the Additional Advocate-General as taken in Court and submitted that the respondents are approbating and reprobating in the same breath as in the report and parawise comments they have in categorical terms stated that "during the scrutiny of record it was found that the qualification of the petitioner was B.A. B.Ed. And M.A. Education while she was awarded 5.54 additional marks against M.A.
Qualification. As per recruitment policy, the qualification of M.A. Education is professional qualification. She is not entitled for the grant of additional marks of qualification of M.A. Education. It was a clerical mistake which has been rectified. After rectification in merit list, she lost her name. So her appointment order has been withdrawn and next eligible candidate according to the meta list has been appointed against said post."
6. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been taken into consideration, material made available on the record perused.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had been appointed as Elementary School Educator vide appointment letter dated 31-1-2009 and she had accordingly submitted her joining report on 7-11-2009 and started performing her duties. There is no allegation against the Petitioner nor there is any fault on the part of the petitioner as to have manipulated in obtaining the additional marks; as such, the withdrawal order of her appointment letter would be against the principle of natural justice when she had secured a vested right, which could not be taken away or withdrawn by the respondents without fulfilling the requirement of the principle of natural justice as has been held by the apex Court in its judgment reported as Asim Khan and others v. Zahir Shah and others 2007 SCM R 1451 that "Order passed by the Authority, withdrawing appointment letter being in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, High Court was justified to accept their constitutional petition." The said judgment had been passed relying upon the various judgments of the apex .Court reported as Army Welfar's case 1992 SCM R 1652, Fazlur Rahman's case PLD 1964 SC 410, Zakir Ahmad's case PLD 1965 SC 90, Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304, Khan Bahadur's case 1992 CLC 395, Rifat Parveen's case 1981 SCM R 1002 and Muhammad Saifullah Khan's case PLD 1989 SC 166. Further, as per the certificate of Allama Iqbal Open University M.A.
Education is not a professional degree but it is a degree of Arts in Education. The professional degree issued by the AIOU at Master level is M.Ed. For which entry requirements is B.A./B.Ed. but for admission to M.A. (Education) entry requirement is simple B.A. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents that M.A. Education is a professional degree, is not substantiated by the certificate issued by the Allama lqbal Open University Authorities.
8. In the above perspective, this writ petition is accepted as prayed for.