' The petitioner applied for the appointment as Arabic Teacher. She was interviewed and was awarded 64 marks out of 100 marks, whereas, the last successful candidate securing 68 marks was appointed according to the merit list. The petitioner has submitted in this petition that she is the daughter of an ex-Headmaster namely Fateh Khan who died during the service and as such according to the recruitment policy, she was entitled to the additional ten marks and as such her total marks would become 74 instead of 64. Since the last successful candidate had secured 68 marks, therefore, she had earned the right of appointment with the additional ten marks, pointed out above.
2. The District Education Officer (W), Chakwal has appeared in person who admitted that according to policy, the petitioner was entitled to ten additional marks and had she claimed and produced the certificate regarding the in-service death of her father, she would have been on the panel of successful candidates. But since she did not disclose in her application that her father died during the service nor did she file any appeal before the Appellate Authority or the Review Board claiming therein that she being the daughter of a deceased Headmaster was entitled to the additional marks aforesaid and as such, had to be appointed against the post of Arabic Teacher.
Hence, it was alleged that the petitioner was not entitled to the appointment because of her own lapse. Lastly, it is contended by the District Education Officer (W), Chakwal that the name of the petitioner was entered in the waiting list by the Director of the Education but since a ban on recruitment was placed by the Government, therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed although she had, later on, produced the certificate regarding the death of her father. It was also added in paragraph No,4 of the comments that the list showing the name of the petitioner had been sent to the Secretary, Education and after the latter approved her appointment, the order shall be accordingly issued. However, verbally, it was added that now waiting list has become meaningless because the Government is preparing some new education policy and the future recruitments will be made according to that policy irrespective of the fact that the petitioner had earned the right of appointment by showing that she is the daughter of a deceased Headmaster.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in re-joinder to the above contentions that the fact remains that the petitioner would have been selected if she was awarded 10 additional marks under the existing policy and since a right of appointment had vested in her, therefore, it could not be defeated only because the Government had placed any ban on further recruitments or that fresh recruitment policy was to chalked out by the Government.
4. I have considered the forgoing contentions and find that the fact cannot be belied that the petitioner is the daughter of a deceased Headmaster and under the exiting policy, she had earned her right of appointment after she was to be given 10 additional marks thereby totaling her marks to 74. The fact that there is any ban, would not take away her right which has already vested in her.
Likewise, the recruitment policy in offing cannot take away the right of the petitioner for appointment as Arabic Teacher which has already vested in her as pointed out above.
5. In view of the above situation, the writ petition is allowed and,the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Arabic Teacher within a fortnight irrespective of the ban which was placed subsequent to a date on which a right of appointment had vested in her. The copy of the appointment letter issued to the petitioner shall be sent to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to show that the order of this Court has been complied with.
6. Disposed of with the above order. Civil Miscellaneous No,1223 of 1997. Civil Miscellaneous No,1224 of 1997.
7. These petitions also stand disposed of with the disposal of the main petition.