Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the respondents appointed the petitioner as Litigation Officer in the year 1991. The respondents did not regularize the services of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No, 20343-2001, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2002 with the direction to the respondents to constitute a committee to finalize the matter within one month positively from today. Thereafter the competent authority was directed to pass an appropriate order on the basis of recommendation of the committee within a fortnight, then the competent authority should submit its report within specific period. The competent authority approved one time regularization in .view of peculiar circumstances of the present case and rendered for long years service by the present incumbent.
However, final selection would be made on the basis of committee to judge/asses from competency and skilled. The case of the petitioner was placed before the committee on 31.1.2003, wherein the petitioner and the committee unanimously recommended all the persons including the petitioner. The competent authority did not accept the recommendation of the said committee and decided that seven posts of litigation officer should be filled in through open competition and an advertisement shall be given in press by inviting the applications from the eligible candidates.
The present petitioner would also be allowed to participate and the petitioner would be given benefit of their experience length of service and relaxation of age, if required. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents did not agitate the order dated 8.11.2002 passed in W.P. No, 20343-2001 by this Court, before any higher forum. The learned counsel, who. entered appearance on Court's call placed on record order of the competent authority dated 14.10.2002 on 8.11.2002, therefore, order dated 8.11.2002 passed by this Court is binding upon the parties, therefore, the respondents have no lawful authority to wriggle out from the order of this Court. He further submits that the competent committee has recommended the case of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has accrued vested right and action of the respondents is without lawful authority. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- 'Miss Farzana Qadir vs. Province of Sindh" (2000 PLC (CS) 225). "D.G. Ordinance Service vs. Muhammad Abdul Latif' (2003 S.C.M.R. 410). "Government of the Sindh vs. Abdul Sattar Sheikh, etc." (2003 S.C.M.R. 819).
He further submits that the respondents have no lawful authority to issue advertisement qua the post in-question on the well known principle of approbate and reprobate. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Shahzad Gull. vs. Addl. Secretary Home, Govt. of NWFP, etc." (1999 S.C.M.R. 1028). Government of the Balochistan vs. Marjan Khan" (2003 S.C.M.R. 444). "Chairman Mininum, Wage Board, vs. Fayyaz Khan Khattak" (1999 P.S.C. 886).
He further submits that action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as the action of the respondents is discriminatory in a character in view of Paras Nos, 3 & 5 of the constitutional petition, which was not denied in its true perspective by the respondents in the report and parawise comments.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that action of the respondent is in accordance with law. The competent authority has framed the policy on 14.4.1996 as is evident from Annexure R/2 attached with the report and parawise comments. He further submits that case of the petitioner was sent to the Chairman, who did not agree as the Director General, LDA, his subordinate has failed to send summary in accordance with law. He further submits that action of the respondents is not hit by Article 25 of the Constitution, as cases mentioned by the learned counsel of the petitioner in Paras Nos, 3 & 5, are not exactly similar qua the case of the petitioner, therefore, action of the, respondents is valid. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to give direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner in violation of rules and regulations of the respondents. He further submits that the competent authority constituted committee. The first committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner, whereas second committee has recommended the case of the petitioner, therefore, the competent authority was justified to direct the office to fill the post in-question through advertisement in terms of policy of the respondents dated 14.4.1996.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner is rebuttal submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of litigation officer/legal assistant after completing all the legal formalities. The petitioner requested the respondents since 1991 for regularization of his services but the respondents failed to regularize the services of the petitioner malafidely. The respondents allegedly approved the procedure of recruitment and promotion on 14.4.1996; whereas the petitioner has agitated the matter before the respondents before 14.4.1996 as is evident from the documents attached by the petitioner with the constitutional petition. The petitioner has also filed Constitutional Petition No, 682-96, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.11.1996 on the statement of the legal advisor of the LDA respondents.
5. I have given 'my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that the competent authority has constituted a committee consisting of Addl.
Director LDA, Director Legal, LDA and Ch. Muhammad Rashid Ahmad & Mr. Rehan Bashir, legal advisors of the LDA. The committee had granted one time for regularization of service of petitioner in view of peculiar circumstances of the case of the petitioner, thereafter the committee was constituted by the competent authority and the committee recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization, therefore, the petitioner has accrued vested right. The competent authority had discarded the recommendation of the committee without issuance of any notice to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner .was placed before the competent committee in its meeting. The committee in its meeting held on 31.1.2002, recommended the case of the petitioner unanimously alongwith other persons, therefore, the competent authority has no lawful authority to discard the same without issuance of notice to the petitioner and without applying its independent mind. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the impugned order of the respondents to resolve the controversy between the parties. "It was decided that seven posts of Litigation Officer should be filled in through open competition.
An advertisement shall be given in press inviting applications from eligible candidates. Present officials will also be allowed to participate. However, they would be given benefit of their experience, length of service and relaxation of age if required."
Mere reading of the aforesaid order of the authority does not contain any reason; therefore, the same is not in accordance with law. After addition of Section 24-A in the General Clauses, it is the duty and obligation of the competent authority to pass the impugned order after applying its independent mind with reasons, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in 'M/s. Airport Support Service's case" (1998 S.C.M.R. 2268). It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has accrued vested right as the committee has recommended the case of the petitioner to the competent authority, therefore, it is the duty and obligation of competent authority to disagree with the recommendation of the committee with reasons and after issuance of the notice to the petitioner. This procedure was not adopted as is evident from the impugned order. The committee did not adopt this procedure, which is in violation of principle of natural justice. The vested right accrued to the petitioner, cannot be taken-away without issuance of notice to the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in 'Zakir Ahmad's case (PLD 1965 S.C. 90) and "Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd.'s case (1983 S.C.M.R. 1208).
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order of the competent authority for advertisement is set-aside, meaning thereby the recommendation of the committee shall be placed before the competent authority. The competent authority shall pass its afresh order after applying its independent mind after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner, preferably within 3-months after receiving the order of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Director General, LDA/competent authority, in his office at 11-00 a.m. on 12-11-2003, who is directed to pass afresh order either himself or send the same to the competent authority, who is also directed to pass afresh order in the terms of aforesaid direction of this Court. Office is directed to provide one copy of this order to Mian Muzaffar Hussain, legal advisor of the respondents-LDA, who is directed to send the same to the aforesaid Director General, LDA/competent authority for necessary action and compliance. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.