' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Mst. Khalida Parveen, petitioner was appointed as Arabic Teacher by the respondent department against leave vacancy vide appointment letter dated 29-5-1996. The petitioner took over the charge as Arabic Teacher in Government Girls Middle School, Gandari Khattak on 1-9-1996 and started with her duties in the said school upto 1-8-1999. She received termination letter from District Education Officer (Female) Secondary, Karak, respondent No,1 on 17- 7-1999. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed departmental appeal which has unresponded.
2. The petitioner having no other remedy. Resorted to the filing of instant Constitutional petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to release the amount of the salary of the petitioner @ Rs,1605 per month for the whole period in which the petitioner has been within services of the respondent department.
3. In the parawise comments submitted oil behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2, claim of the petitioner has been denied and it is reiterated that the petitioner is not entitled for the dues as her basic appointment was irregular' and in violation of the rules and regulations.
4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Ghulam Nabi, Advocate strenuously contended that the petitioner was validly appointed against leave vacancy of one Zubaida Shaheen and during the period the petitioner has also been performing election duties held on 3-2-1997 alongwith other teachers at Polling Station Government High School, Ghujaki Ka11a, Tehsii and District Karak; that during this tenure of her duty on 7-3-1997 the inspection of the school was carried on by respondent No,1 and satisfactory remarks were incorporated on the log book regarding the performance of the petitioner. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel maintained that salary of the petitioner has been whithheld by the department Without legal justification and that the petitioner could not have been penalised due to fault Oh the part of the Government functionaries. He relied on Administrator, District Council, Larkana and another v. Ghulab Khan and 5 others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 991),
5. Sardar Shaukat Hayat, Additional Advocate-General, on the other hand, supported the action of the department and contended that salary of the petitioner was withheld for the reason that she continued to work even after the expiry of the leave period fully knowing that her services automatically stood terminated and the same were no more required.
6. The learned counsel also raised certain preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition and locus standi of the petitioner to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. We have heard at length the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents annexed with the petition. We find ourselves in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that appointment of the petitioner was quite regular made by the competent authority against the leave vacancy. It may be observed here that none of the respondents or any responsible officer of the respondent department has ever raised such objection while the petitioner was working as a Teacher for 34 months: At this juncture it does not lie in the mouth of the department to assert that salary of the petitioner has been withheld for the reason that her appointment was 'irregular' and in violation of the rules and regulations. The petitioner cannot be subjected to victimization on account of the negligence of the respondent department. The petitioner is demanding salary for a period which she has been serving the department, which is also not disputed. She was appointed against the leave vacancy of one Mst.
Zubaida Shabeen and she was allowed to continue her service even after 11-12-1996 by the respondent department, with a hope that her services will be regularized if she continues her services with the respondent department. It may be noticed here that the petitioner was appointed by the competent authority on the leave vacancy. If at all there was some irregularity in the appointment, it was never objected by any other respondent or any authority during the period while rendering services by the petitioner to the department, rather the petitioner was entrusted with election duties and during inspection satisfactory remarks were entered in the log book about her performance. In the circumstances we feel that respondent department had no legal justification to withhold the salary of the petitioner for the period in question. We accept the petition and direct the respondent department to release the amount of the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs,1605 per month for the whole period in which the petitioner has been within service of the respondent-department. We make no order as to costs.