' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner calls in question the validity of order dated 2-12-2011 regarding cancellation of his contract for the post of ESE.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Elementary School Educatory in BS-9 on contract basis for a period of five years vide order dated 24-12-2009; that the respondent No,4 cancelled his contract on the allegation that he produced a fake domicile certificate without conducting regular inquiry. This according to the learned counsel is illegal and mala fide; that during the selection process the recruitment committee got verified the documents including domicile certificate and thereafter issued the petitioner an offer of appointment; that after elapse of two years vested right has been created in favour of the petitioner and the respondents cannot dispense with his services in a summarily manner; that the services of other colleagues of the petitioner have been regularized but instead of regularizing the service of the petitioner the respondent No,4 has cancelled his contract which is illegal and without lawful authority. Seeks indulgence of this Court.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has procured appointment on the basis of certificate of domicile which has been cancelled by the competent authority being fake and forged w,e,f, 22-2-2011 and the petitioner has not challenged that order in any Court of law. The appointment order of the petitioner dated 24-12-2009 is available on the record and the condition No,13 of the said order is reproduced as follows:--- "If at any stage, it is discovered that you have obtained this appointment on the basis of bogus/forged documents or through deceit by any means the appointment shall be considered to be void ab initio and you shall be liable to refund all amounts received."
The domicile certificate of the petitioner has been found fake and forged and the competent authority has cancelled the same, therefore, having accepted the aforementioned condition of the appointment order the petitioner had no locus stand to file the instant writ petition.
5. By producing fake and forged domicile certificate the petitioner obtained 8 additional marks posing himself as a local resident of the area and succeeded in maneuvering his appointment as ESE. Due to this conduct, the petitioner caused injustice to other candidates who would have been much better qualified than him and who would have been better entitled for the said post if the petitioner is not appointed on the basis of fake and forged domicile. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no regular inquiry was conducted before passing impugned order is concerned, not only a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner but also an opportunity of being heard was also provided to the petitioner but the petitioner could not defend his conduct. Furthermore, in case reported as Abdul Haque Indhar v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department Karachi and 3 others (2000 SCM R 907) the Hun'ble apex Court has held as under:--- "Further adding to these reasons we would observe that if this rider is not placed for applying the principle of "Audi alter am partum".. Then in certain cases where the law demands that action must be taken promptly shall defeat the ends of justice and there is very likelihood that the object is required to be achieved by any immediate action shall not be accomplished and in the meanwhile a person who has no vested right shall continue to enjoy the benefits of the deeds without any legal entitlement. It is also to be noted that it is high time to ensure that transaction between the individuals vis-a-vis the State are just, fair, open, honest and transparent. Therefore, action of individuals which is not honest and based on mala fides may not be allowed to exist merely for the reason that the principle of natural just was violated."
6. Moreover, it is settled law that the authority that has a power to make an order has also the power to undo it. In case reported in PLDIC 1992 SC 207 (The Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Jalaluddin) the Hon'ble apex Court has held that under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the authority which can pass an order is entitled to vary, amend, add to or to rescind that order.
7. Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is discretionary in nature and cannot be exercised to perpetuate ill-gotten gains as it has been held in PLD 1973 SC 230 (Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others ).
8. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that the domicile certificate of the petitioner was genuine and the petitioner challenged the order of the authority regarding cancellation of said domicile certificate in any Court of law, therefore, while cancelling the contract of the petitioner, the competent authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
9 Resultantly, this Constitutional petition being devoid of any force stands dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.