' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.---Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (BPS-17) in Mathematics at GPI Kamalia, on the basis of a public advertisement given by respondent TEVTA in the year 2010. After due process, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 18.08.2010 on contract basis for a period of three years, however, subsequently her appointment was terminated vide order dated 25.02.2011 due to error in tabulating the merit list and respondent No. 6 was offered appointment in place of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the Chairman, TEVTA was passed without granting a hearing to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents-TEVTA, as well as, respondent No. 6 at the very outset raised a preliminary objection that the instant petition is not maintainable as it arises out of a contract.
On the issue of grant of hearing to the petitioner, reference has been made to letter dated 10.2.2011 written to the Legal Manager TEVTA Secretariat, Lahore by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner herself has admitted that she was given a personal hearing on 31.01.2011. The said letter has been placed on the record by the petitioner as Annex-E of the petition.
3. Learned counsel further referred to Note of Personal Hearing dated 31.1.2011, which has been duly signed by the petitioner and has been placed on the record as R-V to the reply filed by the respondent. The impugned order dated 25.2.2011 passed by the Chairman, TEVTA also points out that the petitioner has been granted a hearing.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, factually disputes this fact and submits that the petitioner was never granted a personal hearing.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, which shows that the petitioner was granted a hearing before the impugned order was passed. Letter written by the petitioner dated 10.2.2011 to the Legal Manager TEVTA Secretariat confirms that she was given a hearing. The note of personal hearing dated 31.1.2011, as well as, recording of this fact in the impugned order dated 25.2.2011 passed by the Chairman TEVTA reaffirms that the petitioner was granted a hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the above documents are fake and reliance should not be placed on them. In such an eventuality the petitioner is free to challenge the same in the Court of plenary jurisdiction as this Court ordinarily does not embark upon resolving questions of facts. Reliance placed on "Sheikh MUHAMMAD SADIQ v. ELAHI BAKHSH and 2 others (2006 SCM R 12), AMIR JAMAL, and others v. Malik ZAHOOR-ULHAQ and others (2011 SCM R 1023), Miss ZUBAIDA KHATOON v. Mrs. TEHMINA SAJID SHEIKH and others (2011 SCM R 265) and FIDA HUSSAIN and another v. Mst. SAIQA and others (2011 SCM R 1990).
6. The instant petition is even otherwise not maintainable as it arises out of a contract between the parties. Reliance is placed on: "Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e- Azam International Airport, Karachi and others" (1998 SCM R 2268) and "Muhammad Ashraf Ali v.
Muhammad Naseer and 2 others" (1996 SCMR 1096).
7. For the above reasons, this Constitutional petition is dismissed. The petitioner is free to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to dispute the fact that she was never granted a personal hearing and the documents placed before this Court are fabricated. The findings of this Court will not come in the way, if any such remedy is re-coursed to by the petitioner.