SYED JAMSHED ALl, J.--- The petitioner is a contender for the post of Program Producer in pay group No. 5 in the Pakistan Television. Vide order dated 25.9.1999, respondent No. 6; was appointed as Program Producer on contract for a period of two years. His appointment was however, terminated vide order dated 23.11.1996. However, on the application of the said respondent, routed through the Minister for Information and Media Development, he was again appointed to the said post vide order dated 13.9 1997.
2. The petitioner is already serving in the P.T.V. His case is that the post of Program Producer was first advertised on 8-.11.1992 and then on 5.2.1995. The petitioner applied at both the occasions but the process of selection was not finalized and vide order dated 25.9.1996 respondent No 6 was appointed to the post on contract basis for which neither applications from other eligible candidates were invited, nor a public notice was given and the process of selection was not undertaken. It is contended that the act of the respondents to secretly dole out public employment without following the proper procedure and denying an opportunity to the petitioner to compete for the said post is pure and simple an act of favoritism' and is clearly against the rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Abdul Jabbar Memon and others (1996 SCM R 1349) and Capt.
(Retd.) Muhammad Naseem Hijazi Director Finance and Admn. Gujranwala v. Province of Punjab and 2 others (PLJ 2000 SC 1720). He further submits that vide order dated 23.11.1996 the services of respondent No. 6 were terminated .but he was able to muster political support and on the application addressed to the Minister for Information and Media Development he was again appointed on contract for a period of two years. Therefore, the administrative discretion has been abused and an equal opportunity in the public employment has been denied to the petitioner in violation, of the guarantee of Article 25 of the Constitution.
3. The learned counsel for the P.T.V. contends that since the petitioner is already in service of the P.T.V , this writ petition is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, because of the ban, regular appointment to the post in-question could not be made, the P.T.V. is a commercial organization. and while recruiting persons at various levels a number of considerations have to be kept in view.
He produced two charts at the time of hearing which show that a large number of persons are employed by the P.T.V. on daily wages or contract basis. According to him, the procedure for regular appointment was not applicable to contract appointments. He also referred to chapter XV of the Pakistan Television Corporation, Employees Service Rules which provides departmental remedies and contended that this writ petition is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that because of the ban there is an acute shortage of Program Producers and since respondent No. 6 was working as Assistant Program Producer Current Affairs since 1989, he was appointed on contract basis. His appointment was, therefore, in the interest of the organization. It is further contended that the petitioner is serving as an Associate Engineer therefore, he is not eligible for the post of Program Producer.
5. The learned counsel fore the petitioner, in rebuttal has controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. He submits that the required qualification for the post of Program Producer, according to the public notice, dated 5.2.1995, was a Master's Degree in various subjects and since the petitioner has already acquired a Master's Degree he was, eligible for the said post. He further submits that a department representation was made to the Managing Director by the petitioner on 16.9.1997 which was declined vide order dated 23.10.1997 and it was only thereafter that the petitioner has approached this Court in the present Constitutional petition.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Rule 61 of the P.T.V. Service Rules provides for filling in the vacancies in Groups 2 to 6 by promotion and according to rule 6.2 if no suitable candidate is available within the channel of promotion relevant to a particular vacancy, it shall be advertised among all serving employees of the Corporation Rule 4.1 classifies the employees into different categories and it includes a contract employee who is defined in Rule 4.2. Rule 6.3 provides that applications received from the serving employees under Rule 6.2 will be scrutinized and the candidates, who possess required qualification and experience, will be interviewed by the Selection Board which will submit its recommendations to the Managing Director for approval. Rule 6.4 provides that if a suitable candidate is not- available, within the channel of promotion a candidate may be appointed from outside and for the purpose the appointing authority may either advertise the vacancies or may adopt any other procedure which is considered by him to be in the best interest of the Corporation.
7. The effect of the aforesaid provisions is that if a vacancy is to be filled in, irrespective of the .capacity, including contract employment, from amongst the employees of the P.T.V., all eligible persons are entitled to be considered under Rule 6.2 and by the Selection Board as required by Rule 6.3. The aforesaid rules do not permit the making of any appointment including a contract appointment in secrecy without providing opportunity to compete for the post to other eligible employees of the P.T.V. Denial of equal opportunity in the matter of public employment violates Article 25 of the Constitution and, therefore, cannot be countenanced. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully supported by the rule laid down in the case of Abdul Jabbar Memon (supra).
8. The petitioner was only a candidate for the post of Program Producer. He is not enforcing terms and conditions of his service. Therefore, the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution is not applicable.
Reference may be made to Dr Ahmad Salman Waris Assistant Professor. Services Hospital. Lahore v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and 5 others (PLD 1997 SC 382) which is a complete answer to the above contention. The other contention that since the appointment has not been made on regular basis it was not necessary to adhere to the proper procedure is also equally untenable. The fact that P.T.V. is a commercial organization and therefore, free to make contract appointments in dis-regard of their own rules and the rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only projects King can do no wrong" theory which cannot be accepted in a society governed by written Constitution.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Appointment of respondent No. 6 as Program Producer made vide- order dated 13 9.1997 is declared as without lawful authority with the result that the post occupied by him, will be deemed to be vacant and if the respondents are minded to fill in the said vacancy, the procedure prescribed in the Service Rules shall be followed. No order as to costs.