' Petitioner was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher and was posted at Government Girls Elementary School, Phulliani Markaz, Changa Manga, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur vide order dated 6-12-1995 issued by the Deputy District Education Officer (EE), Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur. The petitioner joined her duties on 10-12-1995. The petitioner has attached certificates dated 19-2-1997 and 7-3- 1997 issued by the Headmistress, Government Girls Elementary School, Phuliani Markaz, as well as certificate dated 8-3-1997 issued by the Assistant Education Officer (W) concerned Markaz Changa Manga, District Kasur testifying that the petitioner is still working. The services of the petitioner were terminated by a general order dated 26-12-1995 issued by the Deputy District Education Officer (EE), Chunian, District Kasur, which is also stated to have covered the case of the petitioner.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been duly appointed and that the order of the appointment had taken its legal effect. The same could not be recalled to the, detriment of the rights of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407). Learned counsel further submits that there was no specific order of termination of the petitioner having been issued by the competent Authority i,e, Deputy District Education Officer.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General on instructions from D.D.E.O. (EE) District Kasur present in court states that the general impugned order dated 26-12-1995 was to cover the case of the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As a matter of fact there is no denial from the respondents that the petitioner had been appointed and discharging her duties without any break.
There is no impugned order specifically addressed with the name of the petitioner, whereby her services were terminated. The order dated 26-12-1995 cannot be treated to operate against the rights of the petitioner and the same is, therefore, held to be without lawful authority.
5. In this view of the matter this writ petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 26-12-1995 qua the petitioner is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner shall be entitled to the payment of salary and other allowances in accordance with law. This order shall not preclude the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs.