Shah Jehan Khan Akhunzada, J.--Through the instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Ms. Abida petitioner has approached this Court for the following prayer: It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of this constitutional petition, this Hon'ble Court may please to declare the impugned letter dated 15.11.2010 which has excluded the name of the petitioner from the successful list earlier prepared by the Respondent No, 1 be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and Respondent No, 1 be directed to cancel the letter dated 15.11.2010 and issue a fresh letter to the effect that the petitioner is legitimately entitled to be recommended as one of the successful candidates for the 05 posts which were earlier advertised by the Respondent No, 1 and 'include in the new list the name of the petitioner".
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the instant petition are that the Respondent No, 1 advertised `a' post of lecturer in the subject of Islamiyat inviting application for which the petitioner being qualified in the subject has also applied. She appeared in-the written examination conducted by Respondent No, 1 on 23.6.2010 and he was declared in it successful obtaining 3rd position amongst as many as 204 candidates. She was called for interview on 1.9.2010 and ultimately vide letter Annexure "E she was placed at Sr. No, 5 and through letter dated, 21.10.2010 (Respondent No, 3) informed the petitioner that she has been recommended by the Public Service for appointment and she was directed to appear before the Standing Medical Officer for medical examination and after conducting her medical examination, she was only waiting for a proper letter of appointment as all the formalities have been completed by her. However, when she visited the office of Respondent No, 3 in order to collect her appointment order where she learned about another letter addressed by Respondent No, 1 to Respondent No, 3 recommending Respondent No, 4 against the seat to which the petitioner was entitled vide letter dated 15.11.2010.
3. Comments were called from Respondents No, 1 and 2 who furnished the same wherein they admitted almost all averments made in the petition but stated that the name of the petitioner was mistakenly recommended and the same was later on corrected and conveyed to the Higher Education Department.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
5. The above narration of facts demonstrate that the petitioner has qualified the written examination and was also declared qualified in the interview and she was recommended for the post applied for which she had also been medically examined and was waiting for the proper appointment letter but she was ignored. The respondents in the comments admitted that the name of the petitioner was included in the earlier recommendation letter but it was a mistake during allocation of post as explained in the written reply. In the given situation, the petitioner could not be held to be at fault. It is well settled that once a right is created in favour of a litigant, citizen of Pakistan in due course of time, it cannot at all be taken back arbitrarily. In the instant case, the petitioner has passed the written test and was also qualified in the interview and later on was duly recommended for the appointment on the post applied for. She was also directed to be medically examined but later on due to the mistake/fault of the respondents she was deprived of her accrued valuable right she therefore, she cannot be deprived of indefeasible right accrued to her on the basis approved legal, process adopted by the respondents.
6. In the light of what has been stated above, there is left hardly any doubt that the petitioner having been selected/recommended for the post applied for and duly informed by the respondent of the same, there remains/leave no authority with the respondent to recall their recommendations unless it could be shown and proved through conclusive evidence that it was secured by her by fraud. She appeared and was declared successful and was consequently recommended for appointment and asked to appear before the Medical Board for her medical examination. Thus, valuable and indefeasible right accrued to the petitioner entitled her to claim benefit of appointment and it at all could not be withdrawn by the respondents. Order withdrawing her recommendations, after she had been recommended for appointment and thereafter exclusion of her name for appointment is explicitly without lawful authority, void ab-initio and of no legal effect and therefore, ultra wires to Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 Reliance is placed in PLD 1980 Peshawar-128 and 1997 SCM R-15.
7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 15.11.2010 through which the name of the petitioner has been excluded from successful list is declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the respondents are directed, to issue fresh letter holding the petitioner as one of successful candidate for the post applied for and also include her name in the new list and issue order of her appointment for the post applied for with effect from the date of her original first recommendations.