This constitutional petition has been filed by Ghulam Mustafa to challenge the validity of an order issued by respondent No. 2 whereby order for his training as Telecom : Technician was recalled.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is -that he is already serving in the Telecom : Department as Chowkidar. He was allowed to sit in the recruitment examination held in April, 1981 in which he was successful. He was, thereafter. Selected for training as a Telecom :technician subject to-availability of the vacancies and conditions which are spelt out in Annexure `A' to the Writ Petition. On successful completion of the training, the petitioner was to be appointed as a Telecom : technician on pro--bation for one year subject to the availability of the posts according to the merit obtained in the final examination. In case no vacancy was available at that time, he was to be kept on waiting list till a vacancy occurred. He was to receive stipend during the period of two years. He was accordingly directed to report to the Divisional Engineer Regional Telecommunication Training School, Lahore Cantonment by 1st October, 1981 alongwith docu--ments required to be produced.
Such documents were a medical certificate of fitness from a Commissioner Medical Officer and a security of Rs. 50 deposited in a Post Office, pledged in. Favour of the General Manager, Central Telecommunication Region. Lahore. There was also a declara--tion required to be filed by him that his parents had no objection to his such training. Thereafter the petitioner made a request for change from General to Microwave which was accepted and communicated to him by Annexure 'B' to the writ petition dated 23rd March, 1981. He was accordingly directed to report for training to the Divisional Engineer, R. T. T. S. Karachi on 1st October, 1981. The petitioner also relies on Annexure `C' dated 29th September, 1981 whereby sanction was granted relieving the petitioner from his duties from Lahore Division were. f. 30th September, 1981 with. Orders to report to Divisional Engine-r Training (R. T. T. S,), Karachi with immediate effect. The basis for refusing to allow the petitioner to continue with his training is disclosed by Annexure `D' which is a communication from the General Manager, Central Telecommunication Region, Lahore to Divisional Engineer, Regional Telecommunication Training, School Lahore Cantonment dated 1st November, 1981. It states that the petitioner was erroneously declared success flit in the competitive examination of Telecommunication Technicians and directed to report to the Divisional Engineer, R. T. T. S. Karachi for Microwave training. In the meanwhile mistake was detected and Divisi--onal Engineer Karachi was informed not to take the official on duty vide letter dated 27th October, 1981.
3. When this writ petition came up for hearing, I called for a report and parawise comments which were duly received. The stand taken in these parawise comments by the respondent is that it stood disclosed that the- petitioner was not the son of an employee and thus on 27th September, 1981 his result was cancelled and the petitioner was informed of the recall of the order. It is further the departmental stand that as per newspaper advertisement on disclosure of facts/information which had not come into the notice of the administration, the result would be liable to be cancelled or modified totally or partially. It is further stated that the peti--tioner had been erroneously considered as a son of an employee and hence his result was cancelled. It is the department's case that on account of the error, the petitioner was declared successful because he was erroneously considered to be a son of an departmental employee for which category a quota of 25% of the vacancies was reserved. It is admitted in the report that the petitioner had been picked up on erroneous presumption that he was son of an employee of the department whereas he was not. This mistake was sought to be rectified.
4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been strenuously argued that it is not a case on his part of misrepresentation or any violation of law which governs the subject. It is submitted with emphasis that once the order had been passed and conveyed, it took legal effect and thereafter the power of receding was no more available to the departmental authrities on a plea of mistake simpliciter on their own part when the petitioner was not in any manner contributory to such a mistake and was not guilty of any misrepre--sentation. It is being pointed out that even in the departmental report it has not been alleged that the petitioner had misrepresented hism self to be the son of an employee. In such like situations, it is submitted, that departmental authorities did not possess locus penitential to recall the order because once the orders had been conveyed, it took legal effect and right accrued in favour of the petitioner. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on a decision of. The Supreme Court reported as Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayat Ullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407).
M.Y. M.Petition. Accepted.