' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this I.C.A. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by learned Single Judge whereby writ petition No, 22807/2015 filed by respondent No, 10 has been accepted.
2. Facts have been noted in detail by learned Single Judge in his judgment therefore, same need not to be noted here again.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that appellant was appointed as S.E.S.E. (PET) by respondent No, 2 out of seven posts of BS-14 in Tehsil Mamukanjan Faisalabad after fulfilling all the required formalities letter of agreement was Signed on 21.04.2015. Appellant joined services on 22.04.2015 in Government High School, Tariq Colony, Mamukanjan Faisalabad. From 22,04.2015 appellant was performing her duties when her services were terminated on the basis of judgment passed by learned Single Judge while accepting writ petition of respondent No, 10 directing the authority to implement order dated 03.07.2015 passed by Commissioner, Faisalabad Division/Divisional Complaint Redressal Cell, Faisalabad; learned counsel states that even if the writ petitioner/respondent No, 10 was eligible for appointment, the services of the appellant cannot be terminated; he prays for acceptance of this Intra-Court appeal.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No, 10 argues that order passed by learned Single Judge is in accordance with law; states that he cannot contest upon termination of service of the appellant, he Is Interested to the extent of appointment of his client,
5. On the other hand, learned AAG has supported the version of the appellant and further informed that against the order passed by learned Single Judge EDO Education Government of the Punjab has filed C.P.L.A No, 2740 of 2015 before august Supreme Court of Pakistan which is pending and states that respondent No, 10 has not submitted requisite documents within prescribed period/limitation, therefore, he was not issued appointment letter.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.
7. The question determinable before us is whether the complaint redressal cell passed any order that services of appellant be terminated, the answer is in negative and further through the order passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition whether it has been ordered that services of appellant be terminated, the answer of this question is also in negative and further that appellant was appointed in due course of law and there is no fault on her part with regard to her appointment, Admittedly she joined the service on 22.04.2015 and during the pendency of this appeal her services have been terminated despite the fact that an Injunctive order was Issued by this Court on 05,11.2015 there Is another fact that against the order of complaint redressal cell an appeal filed by EDO, Education Is pending before Secretary Education. In these circumstances there is no fault on the part of appellant even there is no allegation of any fraud against the appellant with regard to her appointment as S.E.S,E. (PET) in BS-14 therefore, we take light from the Judgment reported as "Mst. Basharat Jehan v, Director General, Federal Government Education, FGEI (C/Q)
Rawalpindi and others" (2015 SCMR 1418) Paragraph No, 20 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "Once a right is accrued to the appellant by appointment letters issued after complying with all the codal formalities could not be taken away on mere assumption and or supposition and or whims and fancy of any executive functionary. Such right once vests, cannot be destroyed or withdrawn as legal bar would come into play under the well doctrine of locus poenitentiae, well- recognized and entrenched in our jurisprudence (One may refer to Director, Social Welfare, N.W.F.P., Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1350). "
' Further reliance can be placed on the cases reported as "Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Baig v. Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and 3 others" (2001 YLR 1368) and "Naveed Iqbal v. Secretary, Government of Punjab and others" (2012 PLC (C.S.) 1034).
Fault if any on the part of writ petitioner or respondent department for which the appellant cannot be penalized. She has joined the services and was serving the department. Her termination on the basis of order passed by learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2015 in Writ Petition No, 22807 of 2015 is not warranted under the law, therefore, this appeal is accepted and termination of appellant is declared to be without lawful authority. She be restored on her services from the date of termination with all benefits.