' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.--- Afshi Ibrahim, the petitioner has filed this petition, contending that in response to an advertisement published in Daily Newspapers for filling the slots of educators, she applied for one of the posts lying vacant in Tehsil Mianchannu, District Khanewal. According to the merit list displayed by the Executive District Officer (Education), Khanewal, respondent No,2, she stood at Sr.No,29. Sixteen selected persons were issued appointment letters. However, most of them either did not join or left the posts offered to them after joining. Be that as it may, Mst. Neelam, who stood at Sr. No,26 was the last person to whom an appointment letter was issued. For varying and host of reasons three posts could not be filled. Meanwhile, School Education Department of the Government of the Punjab issued Recruitment Policy, 2012. This policy is contained in the Notification dated 5-6-2012. A significant departure was made from the existing Recruitment Policy in that under the aforesaid Notification, the posts still not filled were to be offered first to the candidates who stood next in the merit list finalized in 2011. As it is, the petitioner called upon the respondents, impressing upon them to issue her an appointment letter in terms of the Recruitment Policy, 2012 dated 5-6-2012. All her efforts were in vain, for the respondents were not willing to pay heed to the genuine and lawful demand of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the respondents attempted to put a strange construction on the said notification. Finding no way out, the petitioner approached the Punjab Ombudsman. She moved an application with him, setting forth the details as to how she was being denied her due. After eliciting response from the respondents, the Punjab Ombudsman passed a detailed order on 11-4-2013, enjoining the respondents to issue the petitioner a letter of appointment.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11-4-2013 passed by Punjab Ombudsman, the respondents made a representation to the Governor of the Punjab in terms of section 32 of The Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997. However, the appeal cum representation filed by the respondents herein was dismissed vide order dated 1-8-2013. Still dissatisfied, a review petition was filed, but the same was turned down as well on the ground that The Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997 does not contemplate and provide for a review of the order of the Governor passed under section 32 of the Act (ibid).
3. The petitioner kept on demanding the respondents to issue her an appointment letter, as was ordered by the Punjab Ombudsman, but all her pleas fell on deaf ears. In the meantime, the respondents got published a fresh advertisement in the Newspapers, inviting applications from the prospective Educators. This made the petitioner file the instant writ petition in which she prayed that respondents be directed to implement the order of the Punjab Ombudsman and issue her an appointment letter so that she might take up her duties as an educator.
4. In response to the notices issued to the respondents, they filed a detailed report and Para-wise comments. They stuck to their stand. As is evident from a perusal of the comments, they reiterated that the petitioner could not be accommodated. According to them, she had missed the bus and could not take benefit of the Recruitment Policy issued by the Government of the Punjab vide Notification dated 5-6-2012. It was also stated by them that there was no post lying vacant. They, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer. I have also carefully gone through the order dated 11-4-2013 passed by the Punjab Ombudsman.
6. Since the facts have been set out in detail in paragraph No,1 of this order, and as they have not been disputed by the respondents, I do not feel called upon to recapitulate the same. Suffice it- to say that at the time of the announcement of the Recruitment Policy, 2012 dated 5-6-2012, three posts of Educators were yet to be filled. The very opening paragraph of Notification No,SO(SE-IV).2- 43/2011 dated June the 5th 2012 issued by the Government of the Punjab School Education Department is relevant to resolve the controversy in issue. It would be convenient and advantageous to reproduce the same hereunder:--- "The Competent Authority has approved the recruitment of Educators against all the left over posts which remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidates during the recent recruitment under the Recruitment Policy-2011 dated 25-10-2011. Presently, if any next in merit candidate be available against the seats where joining has not taken place or some candidates has left after joining, the EDO (Edu) will issue Letter of Agreement immediately for such candidates. The joining of these candidates will be arranged on first working day after summer vacation."
7. The afore-referred Notification was duly considered by the Punjab Ombudsman, but he disagreed with the respondents regarding the construction to be put on it. In point of fact, he censured the respondents A for misapprehending and misconstruing the said Notification, declaring their act to be falling within the purview of "maladministration" as defined in section 2 of The Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997. At the same time, it was directed by him to issue the petitioner a letter of appointment. The hardship suffered by the petitioner should have come to an end. Regrettable as it is, the respondents did not budge an inch from their stand. Instead of obeying and carrying out the command of the Punjab Ombudsman, they made a representation before the Governor of the Punjab. No doubt, it was permissible to the respondents to make a representation to the Governor under section 32 of the Act, 1997 (ibid), but once their representation failed for whatever reason, they were to take heed of the order passed by the Punjab Ombudsman. But this was not to be! They came up with a review petition seeking to review the order dated 1-8-2013 passed by the Governor of the Punjab. Again, they were shown the door by the order dated 24-1-2014. In any civilized society, the anguish, agony and mental torture the petitioner was put through would have come to an end, but perhaps the Education B Department and the powers that be consider themselves to be above the law. The conduct exhibited by them shows that they are not willing to bow their heads to the majesty of law.
8. If the orders of the Punjab Ombudsman are not to be carried out and if the edict of the Governor of a Province is not to be followed, what is the purpose of creating such dignified offices? The question is, are not the respondents undermining the authority and prestige of these offices? Their conduct is deplorable and calls for strong censure. It is time that the respondents were taken to task. It is a pity that in order to get the orders passed by Punjab Ombudsman implemented, the petitioner had to file the instant writ petition. In a society which professes and upholds the rule of law, underpinning Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner should not have been made to run from pillar to post to get her clue.
9. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to issue a letter of appointment of an Educator to the petitioner forthwith.