' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- This petition challenges the advertisement dated 12-7-2006 offering 468 posts for appointments on contract basis in the Criminal Prosecution Service of Government of Punjab. Reference is made to provisions of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2006 ("Act") that establishes the offices of the Prosecutor-General and his subordinate officers in the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service ("PCPS") and provides in section 8(4) thereof, for appointment on regular basis to the posts of Prosecutors in different ranks, from the level of Additional Prosecutor-General to the post of Assistant District Prosecutor, to be made on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commissioner (" PPSC ").
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the public offer for contract appointment to the said posts violates the provisions of section 8(4) of the Act. The offer of a contract term of service of three years in the notice is so deviant that it negates and avoids the statutory mandate for recruitment on regular basis on the recommendation of the PPSC. Consequently, the offer of contract service in the PCPS is alleged to be illegal and void.
3. In answer to this petition the learned Prosecutor-General has ably explained the role of PPSC as envisaged by the Act and its duty to forthwith assume the responsibility for conducting criminal prosecutions in the Courts of the Province. Owing to the need to mobilize the PCPS forthwith in order to comply the statutory object, the Government of Punjab, respondent No,1 has framed a scheme for engaging Prosecutors, of different grades envisaged by the Act on temporary contractual basis upon the terms reflected in the impugned advertisement. Such contractual employment does not militate section 8 of the Act because it is not provided on regular basis and is also consistent with civil service laws including the applicable rules and regulations of the PPSC. Appointments on a few posts have already been made in the PCPS so as to install the core personnel, to mobilize the PCPS operationally and for recruitment purposes. Consequently, he urges that there is no violation of the constitutional mandate by the impugned action.
4. The Act creates a new service for promoting the quality of assistance in criminal prosecution rendered to the related competent Courts in the Province. The work of Prosecutors is of highly specialized nature that requires both ability and experience. To ensure the quality of recruitment, the Act has specified the manner in which selection of such Prosecutors shall be made. The recourse to contractual appointments is a deviation from the statutory course and can be justified only for the time consumed for the respondent No,1 to make a requisition to the PPSC and for the period taken by the PPSC to complete its process for making recommendations. The 3 years contract service period offered in the impugned advertisement suggests that the process of regular appointment in PCPS is not anticipated to be completed in such a length of time.
5. In the mind of the Court three years is too long a duration for ad hoc measures to remain in force before a uniform cadre of regularly appointed professionals is established in the PCPS. The impugned proposal prima facie detracts from the statutory mandate of the Act, which must be carried out in all earnest and with expedition.
6. The statutory mode of appointment through an institutionalized process provides merit based transparency. Any different process of recruitment and appointment to posts in the PCPS, howsoever sound and fair, cannot be at par. Firstly, because it deviates from the statutory mandate and secondly, because it shall be ad hoc and therefore, open to dispute.
7. The learned Prosecutor-General has emphatically conveyed the intention of the respondent No,1 to curtail the number and period of contractual appointments to the bare minimum and that ultimately all appointments in the PCPS shall be made subject to PPSC scrutiny or verification. With respect to the matter of time lag, he informs that the respondent No,1 shall send its requisition to the PPSC on or before 30-6-2007 for commencing its recruitment process for posts in the PCPS.
Thereafter, it is for the PPSC to complete its process which too is liable to take considerable time.
During the interregnum, therefore, he urges that the respondent No,1 should be allowed to carry out contractual recruitment through a fair and transparent process. All stop gap appointments already made in the PCPS by the respondent No, land further contractual appointments that are necessary for energizing the PCPS shall be made subject to the scrutiny, examination and approval of the PPSC. Thus, ultimately no appointment made in PCPS except that of Prosecutor-General shall be beyond the purview PPSC action.
8. It is stated that the respondent No,1 shall conduct its recruitment process of contractual appointees through a panel of qualified selectors that shall include a retired Judge of the High Court or the Honourable Supreme Court. Merit and transparency in such selection process of contractual appointment shall be adhered strictly. Based on the foregoing safeguards, which are generally reflected in the additional facts submitted in writing by him, the learned Prosecutor- General has argued that in every new organization transitional measures are necessary to put it in place. If the respondent No,1 is not allowed to undertake contractual appointments, the PCPS shall be prevented from performing its functions until the statutory and transitional process for recommendations by the PPSC is completed. Such an event shall defeat the statutory object for the creation of the PCPS.
9. The Court has given its anxious consideration to the steps being taken by the respondent No,1 to mobilize the PCPS and the stages that must be covered for recruitment of Prosecutors on regular basis in the PCPS on recommendation by the PPSC. There is weight in the submissions made by the learned Prosecutor-General that contract appointments are necessary and should be made. In this behalf, the independence and professional capability of the panel of selectors will also promote merit and fairness in the contractual appointments recommended by them.
10. It is however, noted that the proposed mode of selection, nevertheless, contains defects that have legal consequences. The prolonged period of three years contract appointment offered by the respondents is inconsistent with the statute and the respondent's purport to expedite selection of regard appointees by PPSC. This period must therefore, be curtailed by the respondent No,1 to the bare minimum duration, namely, exceeding six months but not much more than one year. The contract period is of importance also because according to the letter, dated 8-12-2006 by the respondent No,1 addressed to the learned Prosecutor-General, the PPSC has declined to review or confirm the temporary appointments made and projected to be made by the respondent No,1 during the current period of transition. This refusal also applies to the impugned contractual appointments. Therefore, unless the contract appointees join the mainstream competition before the PPSC, they shall form an exclusive class of prosecutors immune from PPSC scrutiny for the duration of their respective contracts. This is not a fair scenario to create nor is it compatible with the Act. Therefore, in a realistic legal context, the stand taken by the PPSC also necessitates that a short contractual term of service is offered by the respondent No, 1.
11. Accordingly, subject to the foregoing limitation of duration of contractual appointment and the obligation that the respondent No,1 shall forward within six months its requisition to the PPSC for induction, recruitment and appointment on regular basis of PCPS Prosecutors, the impugned temporary contractual appointments proposed to be made by the respondent No,1 are held to be lawful and valid. Petition disposed of in foregoing terms.