JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.- The facts are that the petitioner applied to the Authority for appointment as Assistant Director, against a vacant post. Earlier he was employed with the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (Urban) lahorc as Personnal Officer. By means of letter No. Admin/1600 dated 4.6.1986 (Annexure 'A') issued by the Administration Directorate of the Authority in relaxation of L.D.A. (Appoinlmcnt& Conditions of Service) Regulations, the Petitioner was offered the post of Assistant Directed in N.P.S 17. In the matter of conditions of service & discipline he is to be governed by the said Regulations and further his services arc terminable any time, without notice. The petitioner accepted this offer, reported for duly to the Authority, was given the charge of the office of the Assistant Director and is still working as such.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the office Order dated117.6.1986 (Annexure 'B') whereby it was directed that his appointment would be considered on adhoc basis. The Office Order runs as under:"In supersession to this office order No. Admin/600 dated 4.6.1986, the appointment of Mr. Abdul Hameed s/o Abdul Ghafoor as Assistant Director should be considered on adhoc basis for a period of 6 months".
The adhoc appointment has been extended further.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record-The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the principle of locus Poenitentiae as discussed in Pakistan, through the secretary, Ministry of Finance Vs. Muhammad Himayat-Ullah Farukhi (P.L.D.
1969 S.C. 407) and Raja Muhammad Nawas V' Govt, of the Punjab (1981 S.C.M.R. 523). Lt is argued that there was no defect in the petitioner's appointment, as the relaxation of the Regulations was within the competence of the Chairman of the Authority. He pointed out that the offer made by the respondent Authority was not only accepted but also acted upon by the petitioner inasmuich as he resigned left his job in Road Transport Corporatio, joined L.D.A, performed his duties ad Assistant Director and wasalso paid his salaries. It was submitted that the Authority could recall the appointment letter or modify its terms till some decisive step was taken. He submitted that since the appointment order was implemented and legal rights created in his favour, on the basis thereof it was no longer open to the Authority to withdraw or change the terms of the petitioner's appointment to his detriment.
4. There is much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Indeed his arguments find ample support from the precedents cited by him. It is well settled that the authority competent to pass an order can also rescind it but once the order has been given legal effect, such a power cannot be exercised. In the instant case, a reference to Regulation No. 24 of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1978 will indicate that the Chairman of the Authority has ample power to relax the provisions of any of these Regulations. The petitioner's appointment in relaxation of the Rules thus, did not suffer from any infirmity. In fact no defect in the appointment order, has been pointed out. On the other hand, as already observed, this order had already been effectively implemented and valueable rights conferred on the petitioner. He, therefore, could not be denuded of these rights and his regular appointment, he Authority; therefore, acted illgally in changing the terms of the petitioner's appointment.
For all these reasons, the writ petition is accepted, the impugned order be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The parlies arc left to bear their own costs.