' This I.C.A. Is directed against order dated 29-5-2001 passed by single Judge in the Chambers whereby appellant's writ petition was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement published in the newspaper by respondent No,2 for four posts of P.T.C. Teachers. The appellant appeared for interview on 9-4-1995 before the District Recruiting Committee and was selected.
3. Before the issuance of her appointment letter, Provincial Government imposed ban on recruitment in all departments. Later on in Writ Petition No,6592 of 1997, an order was passed that ban would not affect selection made earlier to its imposition and issuance of appointment letters would not be affected in such cases.
4. The said judgment was brought to the notice of respondent No,2 throligh an application wherein the petitioner requested for issuance of appointment letter to her but her grievance, was not redressed. Consequently she filed a writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to her as she had qualified all the formalities and her name was included in the list of successful candidates.
5. The said writ petition was dismissed on 29-5-2001 by the Single Judge in the Chamber.
6. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come up in I.C.A. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the aforesaid order urged before us as under:--
(i) One of the grounds for dismissing writ petition was principle of laches which was not attracted inasmuch as the said principle did not apply to void order or proceedings. In the present case the appellant was selected after interview, list of selected candidates was displayed and the posts are still lying vacant. Only a formal requirement of issuance of appointment letter was to be made;
(ii) The other ground on which the writ petition was dismissed was that minutes or proceedings in which selection of candidates was finalized, were not signed by two members out of three. This was not a valid ground because signing of minutes was merely a formality. Fact that the minutes were signed by one out of three members was sufficient to indicate that meeting was held with the participation of all the members and according to the minutes selection of the candidates was also made. Mere omission to sign the minutes would not negate the entire proceedings of the meeting.
7. The appeal is strongly opposed by Ch. Muhammad Rafique, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. He argued that the action with regard to issuance of appointment letter was to be taken by respondent No,2 (Administrator, Municipal Committee, Sahiwal), after receiving recommendations from the District Recruitment Committee. No recommendation was received, therefore, question of issuance of appointment letter did not arise and that neither any selection was made nor any list of the selected candidates was ever displayed on the notice board.
8. Arguments have been heard and relevant documents annexed with the I.C.A. As well as record of Writ Petition No,11735 of 2000 have also been perused.
9. Adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be observed that prayer of the appellant in the writ petition was that an appropriate writ may be issued directing respondents to issue appointment letter to the appellant because her name is shown in the list of successful candidates which according to para.No,4 of the writ petition was displayed on the notice board.
10. It is not denied that appointment letter could be issued by respondent No,2 after receiving recommendations from the District Recruitment Committee. The respondents in their parawise comments on the writ petition had specifically alleged that any recommendation by the District Recruitment Committee with regard to selection of appellant was not received by them, list of successful candidates was neither prepared nor such list was ever displayed on the notice board.
11. Nothing was produced by the appellant either during the proceedings of the writ petition nor any document has been shown to us to establish that, firstly recommendation by the District Recruitment Committee was received by the respondents and secondly list of successful candidates including the name of the appellant was prepared and was displayed on the notice board.
12. Appellant's counsel has repeatedly drawn our attention to the copy of the minutes of the meeting held by the District Recruitment Committee on 9-4-1995 under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal wherein the appellant is shown as recommended for appointment of P.T.C. Teacher along with three others and has urged that by virtue of this document the appellant has been selected irrespective of the fact that the said minutes are not signed by two senior members including the Chairman.
13. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Unless the minutes are signed by the Chairman and the other senior members, they cannot be deemed as a recommendation of the District Recruitment Committee.
14. Nothing was produced on record to show that the so-called recommendation was sent to respondent No,2 against whom direction is sought for issuance of an appropriate writ. The contention of the appellant's counsel that list of successful candidates including the name of the appellant was prepared and was displayed on the notice board was not proved. Case of the appellant was, therefore, not covered vide judgment, dated 29-4-1999 passed in Writ Petition No,6592 of 1997 because in that case the petitioners were declared successful, were selected, list of the selected candidates including their names was displayed on the notice board and their letters of appointments were withheld on the ground that the ban was imposed on recruitment. In the said circumstances it was held that ban on recruitment would not affect the selection made earlier to the imposition of ban and respondents were directed to issue appointment letters to them.
15. On our query learned counsel for the respondents had informed that on the basis of the interview in which the appellant was also a candidate, no letter of appointment was issued to the other three candidates who according to the appellant were also declared successful in the said interview.
16. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the writ petition merited dismissal and was rightly dismissed. The appeal, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.