1. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.-This Constitutional petition has arisen iq the following circumstances: Vide Order No. 12980/Admn. I, dated 30th June, 1976 (Annexure 'A' the Government of North-West Frontier Province Revenue Department directly appointed the petitioners as Tehsildars/Naib- Tehsildars. A news item to this effect appeared in the Daily Mashriq, Peshawar, in its issue dated 2- 7-1976 persuant to which Azhar Hussain Jaffery and others filed a Writ Petition No. 169 of 1976 in this Court challenging the legality of the appointments of the petitioners as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars.
2. The stand taken by them was that these appointments were mala fide, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as these were made at the back of persons possessing the requisite qualifications for the posts and who aspired to secure the same on merit.
3. It will not be irrelevant to make a reference to another similar Writ Petition No. 158 of 1976 filed by Ghulam Mohuyuddin and another in which they had also challenged the direct appointments of some persons as Superintendents of Police. As a Division Bench of this Court admitted the second mentioned petition to regular hearing, the first writ petition was admitted as a matter of automation. In the second mentioned petition, their Lordships of the Division Bench of this Court had recorded a detailed admitting note on 13-7-1976 and it will be necessary to reproduce the same "The two petitioners in this case, who claim to be graduates, and in all respects qualified to compete for higher Government jobs, have, through this petition, challenged the order of Government, N: W. F. P. (an extract of which from Khyber Mail Peshawar dated July 3, 1976, has been placed on record) on the following grounds:
(1) That the appointments of 11 respondents as Deputy Superintendents of Police thereunder is mala fide.
(2) That the order in question is against the constitutional provisions especially Article 4 thereof, which says: "4.-----(1) To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.
(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."
4. The case of petitioners is that in regard to the appointment of eleven respondents, as Deputy Superintendents of Police, the Provincial Government had neither invited applications, nor had it given notice to public that these vacancies are intended to be filled in, nor indeed the Provincial Public Service Commission consulted in the matter. Their grievance, therefore, is that this action of the Government was mala fide in that it was meant to oblige the close relatives of persons in power in Government or those who were members of the Political party in power. The said action has also been challenged on the ground that it offends the constitutional guarantee given by Article 4 (ibid) to all citizens, including petitioners.
5. These allegations are supported by an affidavit. Besides, the extract from Khyber Mail, Peshawar dated July 3, 1976 would seem to support the contention of petitioners.
6. Admit. Notice.
2. Notice. In the meantime, the impugned order of Provincial Government shall stand suspended."
7. Faced with this situation, the Provincial Government chose not to contest the Writ Petition No. 169/76 and instead rescinded the orders of appointment of petitioners as Tehsildars/Naib- Tehsildars vide Order No. 3730--76/20115/Admn. I dated 6-10-1976 (Annex. D) with the result that the services of petitioners as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars were terminated and in consequence the writ petition was withdrawn. It is this order of rescission of the Provincial Government which is impugned in the present writ petition with a prayer that the same may be held illegal and of no lawful authority and that the petitioners may be declared to be still validly appointed Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars and are Government Servants for all purposes.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the petitioners were appointed as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars in relaxation of the rules and further that they were not issued any show-cause notices nor the principle of audi alteram parten were observed in the case before the services of his clients as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars were terminated, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. We do not find any force in this contention in the circumstances of the case.
9. The posts of Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars are viable posts of great public importance. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the concerned authorities to advertise the posts through information media like Radio, T. V. And newspapers and invite applications for appoint--ment against these posts through a competitive examination and in consequence suitable persons should have been selected and appointed as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars. It is conceded that this was not done in the present case, which is a betrayal of the fact that the petitioners were appointed as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars out of special favour. True, it is riot mentioned in the rules relating to the appointment of Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars that suitable candidates possessing the requisite qualifications will be selected and appointed in consequence of a competitive examination. But it would be imprudent and highly objectionable if persons are appointed as Tehsildars/ Naib- Tehsildars without competitive examination especially when notice is taken of the fact that there is no dearth of highly educated persons aspiring for these jobs. It would, therefore, be obvious that the provision of Article 4 of the Constitution had been disregarded in the present case. Even otherwise, sanity demanded that as a matter of public policy and in order that it should have been shown that the appointments of the petitioners as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars were on merit and entirely impartially, competitive examination must have been held. As this has not bee done in the present case, the appointment orders of the petitioners a Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars had no sanctity in the eye of law being in flagrant violation of the constitutional guarantee that all citizens will be given equal treatment. This Court will, therefore, be reluctant to accord approbation to the orders of appointment of the petitioners as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars, for the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked in aid of injustice. We are, therefore; satisfied, that the petitioners were directly appointed as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars in disregard of the fact that as a matter of public policy there should have been held a competitive examination so that those possessing the requisite educational qualifications and aspiring for the posts of Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars bad taken part in the examination and in consequence suitable candidates should have been selected and appointed as Tehsildars/Naib-Tehsildars. It is, therefore, hardly necessary to observe that in the circumstances of the case, the direct appointments of the petitioners as Tehsildars/Naib- Tehsildars were the result of favouritism and nepotism and such being the case, this petition is entirely frivolous. It is accordingly dismissed. However, we would make no order as to costs.
10. S. G. D.