CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the answering respondents had given advertisement for filling the vacancies, lying under the respondents of different posts including post of Arabic Teacher. In response to the advertisement of the notice, the petitioner submitted application for the post of Arabic Teacher to the District Education Officer (M), E.E. Sahiwal in the month of January, 1997. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the competent authority for test and interview and allegedly, he was selected by the respondents and he. Allegedly secured 73 marks out of I0O on the basis of his qualifications, testimonials and rivavoce. Consequently, the petitioner was appointed by the respondents as Arabic Teacher in Government High School, Karam Baloch, District Sahiwal in BPS-9 ride appointment letter dated 12-2-1997 with certain conditions and the relevant condition No. 9 is as follows:- "The Head of the Institution/D.D.O. Should get verified academic/professional sanad/Degree from the respective Board/University after joining candidate.
The petitioner's certificates were sent to the Board of Intermediate & Secondary" Education, Multan for the verification. The Asst. Controller ("Verification) for Controller verified the documents of the petitioner finding to be correct and the observations are given below against the name/Roll Number of each candidate:- ((Table))
R. No. Certificate Session Name of Name of Father's Date of Result Remarks No. & Year Exam. Candidate Name birth 086367 j.y Jt 12-6-66 440 50 Af d/tPi. jZ jZ V 508 //'
001581 It 215 H
2. The services of the petitioner were cancelled ride letter dated 15-2-1997 in the following terms:- "Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad s/o Fateh Muhammad, r/o 63/4-R appointed as Arabic Teacher under this office order dated 12-2-1997 at Government High School, Karam Baloch is hereby withdrawn/cancelled due to wrong particulars and not stands on the merit'
The Head master of the said School informed the petitioner in the following terms vide letter dated 24-4-1997.
J 5-2-97((Urdu Text))
24-4-97 Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that op the basis of the appointment letter the Headmaster of the aforesaid School sent documents/certificates of the petitioner to the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education for verification. The Asst. Controller (Verification) for Controller of Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education checked and verified the certificates of the petitioner and found them correct vide letter dated 14-3-1997. He further argued that service of the petitioner was terminated without providing him personal hearing. He further argued that termination order dated 15-2-1997 is absolutely bogus, false and frivolous, as the same was passed without providing him personal hearing to establish that his documents are genuine. He further argued that petition secured 73 marks out of I0O, whereas respondents appointed respondents No. 4 and 5 who obtained less marks as compared to the petitioner. The respondents filed para wise comments and raised the preliminary objections staring that writ petition is not maintainable by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution and on merits, reply of paras 2 and 4 and grounds 'c' and 'e' are as follows:-
(2) That para 4 is not admitted, because the petitioner obtained 60 marks on the basis of qualifications and five marks of his interview. Thus he obtained 65 marks.
(4) That para No. 9 is not admitted because Chairman Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Multan scheduled a programme of rechecking of the documents and circulations of Numbers of merits. But the petitioner failed to be recheck his documents. After that, the petitioner's documents were checked and found correct and calculation of merit, he obtained 65 marks.
Grounds "c". That there is clearly mentioned in the orders of the appointment of the petitioner in the condition of service Article No.2 that the appointment is on purely temporary basis and liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and assigned any reason.
(c) Not admitted because appointments were made those candidates who obtained at least 66 marks with interview while the petitioner obtained 65 marks with interview-. Moreover respondents Nos.3 to 5 obtained 71 marks with interview each.
4. The Asst. Advocate General argued that petitioner was appointed by the respondents and his services were terminated ride order dated 15-2-1997. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of matter by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution read with Section 4 of the Sen ice Tribunal Act. He further argued that petitioner procured the appointment letter fraudulently, as the certificates of the petitioner were not found genuine subsequently by the respondents, suit this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner and concealed these material facts from the Hon'ble Court, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court. In rebuttal, the leamed counsel of the petitioner contended that the respondents mala fidley reduced the marks of the petitioner from 73 to 65. He further argued that action of the respondents is based orf malice to accommodate the respondents No.3 and 4. Therefore, preliminary objection raised by the Asst. Advocate General is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He relied upon the following judgments: 1997 PLC (C.S) 1032 (Humaira Mustafa r. Secretary Education)
1997 PLC (C.S) 585 (Dr. Ahmad Suleman Waris r. Dr. Nadeem Akhtar and others).
1997 PLC (C-S) 927 (Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq i. D.E.O, unreported judgment in Writ Petition No. 7509 S 961.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the leamed counsel for the parties, It is admitted fact that the petitioner submitted application to the respondents in response to the advertisement. He appeared in the test and inters new. The appointment letter was issued by the respondents on 12-2-1997 with the following condition:- "The Head of the Institution/D.D.O. Should get verified Academic/professional sand Degree from the respective Board University after joining candidate."
The certificates of the petitioner were checked and found correct by the Asst. Controller (Verification) for Controller on 14-3-1997. The petitioner joined the service ride joining report dated 12-2-1997. His services were terminated due to wrong particulars ride order dated 15-2-1997. The petitioner was discharged from the said school ride letter dated 24-4-1997 on the basis of the order dated 15-2- 1997.
6. From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents and his services were terminated, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution read with Section 4 of the Serv ice Tribunal Act. As is held by the hon''ble Supreme Conn of Pakistan in Yameen's case (PLD 1980 SC 22), (PLD 1980 SC 387) and (PLD 1989 SC 508). The judgments cited by the leamed counsel for the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law. As the petitioners in all the above-mentioned cases cited by the leamed counsel of the petitioner were not inducted in the service and consequently their writ petitions were entertained, while in the present case, the petitioner was inducted in the service and his services were terminated. The respondents terminated the service of the petitioner on account of w rong particulars in the certificates of the petitioner. The respondents are well within their right to verify the genuineness of the certificates of the petitioner by virtue of condition No. 9 aforesaid of the appointment letter. 1 am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Muhammad Afzal Khan 's case (PLD 1958 SC (Pakistan) 258) and the relevant observation is as follows:- "In the view which we take of the case, the establishment of a .Satisfactory character and satisfactory anticipants was a condition sin- qua-non to the completion of the contract of employment.
The petitioner's appointment letter was cancelled due to wrong particulars and not stands on merits, In view of this fact, principle of locus Poenitentiae is not attracted, if the order is illegal, then perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of an illegal order. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalal-ud-Din's case, (PLD 1992 SC 207). The petitioner allegedly claimed that he secured 73 marks out of 100 while the respondents in para wise comments took stand that the petitioner secured 65 marks. Therefore, the nature of controversy between the parties to the petition by itself for factual controversies, which cannot be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. I am fortified by the Supreme Court's judgment 1993 SCMR 618.
Muhammad Younas's case, It is a consistent view of the Supreme Court that in cases where factual controversies are involved. Constitutional petition is not the proper remedy. The petitioner's appointment was cancelled due to wrong particulars. Although Asst. Controller (Verification) for Controller of Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education found the certificates of the petitioner correct vide letter dated 14-3-1997, but the respondents found otherwise, therefore, petitioner cannot take benefit of letter of Asst. Controller (Verification) for Controller dated 14-3-1997, as the petitioner is beneficiary. 1 am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1979 SC.MR S49. The petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court, as the certificates of the petitioner were not found correct by the respondents, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief. I am fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 1969 SGMR 141, 1983 SCMK 196 and 1990 CLC 1783.
7. The controversy between the parties relating to factual controversy, as the petitioner allegedly secured 73 marks out of I0O on the basis of qualifications and interview, whereas the respondents took stand that die petitioner secured 65 marks on the basis of qualifications and interview.
Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, let a copy of this writ petition be sent to respondents N6s. 1 and 2, who shall look into the contents of the writ petition and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing personal hearing to the petitioner without influence of the above-mentioned observation by this Court and pass speaking order keeping in view all the circumstances.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.