1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.--- By this order we propose to decide the petitions bearing C.Ps. Nos.868, 1616, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623, 1646, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1736, 1754, 1756, 1867 and 1888 of 2008 as being involved identical question of law and facts.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No,3 published a consolidated Advertisement No,2 of 2007 dated 1-12-2007 in Daily "Kawish" Hyderabad inviting application for the post of District Public Prosecutor BPS-19, Additional Prosecutor-General Sindh BPS-18, Deputy District Public Prosecutor BPS-18, Deputy Director Monitoring Implementation and Evaluation BPS-18. The petitioners in the above-referred petitions along with other applied for the post advertised. The respondent No,3 called upon all eligible applicants/petitioners vide his letter, dated 24th December. The petitioners appeared in the written test conducted by respondent No,3 and were declared as passed candidate. The respondent No,3 displayed the list of successful candidates at different centers of Province of Sindh. After passing the written test by the petitioner, the respondent No,3 issued interview letters to all successful candidates including the petitioners to appear before the Board/Examination Committee. The petitioners appeared before respondent No,3 for interview and interviews were conducted at various centers in accordance with the procedure. After interviews the respondent No,3 announced names of successful candidates in the press. The respondent No,3 also sent such list of successful candidates/ petitioners with recommendation for appointments to the respondent No,2. The respondent No,2 sent necessary summary for approval to the Chief Minister of Sindh. After approval and acceptance of recommendation of resp9ndent No,3, the Chief Minister sent back approved summary to respondent No,2 for further process. The respondent No,2 through its Section Officer issued offer letter to all the successful candidates including petitioners. As per requirement the petitioners obtained Police Clearance Certificate and Medical Examination reports and furnished the same in the office of respondent No,2 along with their acceptance letters. The respondent No,2 then put up note to the respondent No,1 for formal posting orders. When posting orders were received by successful candidates for the post of PPS-19, the petitioners approached the respondents Nos.1 and 2 who avoided to give specific direction, and ultimately petitioner got knowledge that the Chief Minister of Sindh has approved a summary, through which the selection process will be scraped and post of Deputy Prosecutors and Assistant Prosecutor will be re-advertised.
3. ' Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, argued that after petitioners declared passed candidates in the written test, interview and acceptance letter given to respondent by them in response to offer letter, respondents have no lawful authority to recall the offer letter issued, and/or scrap the list of successful candidates who passed the written test conducted by respondent No,3 and readvertise the post. Learned Advocate argued without prejudice to his contention, after issuance of letter of offer and acceptance of it by the petitioners the offer letter cannot be recalled, that the recommendation of respondent No,3 can be ignored only on valid ground, by giving reason of it and respondent has failed to give any reason why recommendation of respondent No,3 was not acceptable to them.
4. ' In support of his contention learned Advocate relied upon the case of Manthar Ali M. Jatoi v. The Government of Sindh 1988 PLC (C.S.) 344, Salman Adil Siddiqui and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 220 and Chief Secretary, Sindh, Karachi and another v. Haji Muhammad Punjal Narejo 2007 PLC (C.S.) 343.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Saleem Memon learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that after acceptance of recommendation of respondent No,3, which is established from the fact that respondents had issued offer letter, respondents in law are bound to issue posting order and cannot withheld appointment letter. Learned Advocate in support of his submission relied upon the case Secretary Finance and others v. Ghulam Safdar 2005 SCMR 534.
6. ' We have taken into consideration respective arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. Although half-heartedly Mr. Noorani Additional Advocate- General disputed that respondent No,3/SPSC sent list of successful candidates with recommendation of appointment to respondent No,2 and respondent No,2 sent necessary summary for the approval of Chief Minister Sindh, it appears from the record that the respondent No,3 through advertisement invited applications for the post of District Public Prosecutor in BPS-19, Additional Prosecutor-General BPS-18, Deputy District Public Prosecutor BPS-18, Deputy Director Monitoring Implementation and Evaluation BPS- 18. Admittedly respondent No,3 conducted written test of eligible candidates and thereafter invited successful candidates for interviews. The respondent No,3 thereafter recommended names of the successful candidates to respondent No,2 for their appointments as per rules.
7. ' In parawise comments filed in another petition in Constitutional Petition No,D-1371 of 2008, respondents admits that respondent No,3 sent recommendation for the post of Deputy Prosecutor- General (BPS-18) and District Public Prosecutor-General (BPS-19). The respondents further admits that the requisition for the post of Deputy District Public Prosecutor-General (BPS-18) were furnished as prescribed procedure on prescribed requisition form to the Sindh Public Service Commission/respondent No,3 for the filling of the vacant post on regular basis and therefore, the advertisement was published in the newspaper as well as written test and viva voce was conducted and all requisite procedures were adopted by respondent No,3 for recommending the candidates as per laid down procedures and rules. These comments were filed in Court in sometimes on 22nd July, 2008 and as such respondent No,2 now cannot take the plea that the respondent No,3 has not recommended the names of the successful candidates to respondent No,2 or that advertisement was made without prescribed procedure and requisition.
8. ' As regards contention of Mr. Masood A. Noorani, learned Additional Advocate-General that all the appointments and recommendations held during the period of caretaker Government has been cancelled, the same appears to have no footing. The respondent No,2 has accepted recommendation and issued posting orders of District Public Prosecutor in BPS-19 which was advertised by respondent No,3 along with all other posts for which the petitioners were declared successful candidates. Even otherwise learned Advocate failed to point out any rules of business which put any restriction on caretaker Government to request respondent No,3 to invite application for vacant post and conduct examination as per Rules.
9. ' In the case of Manthar Ali M. Jatoi v. The Government of Sindh (supra), wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that:--- "Although the appointment has to be made by the competent authority but under the provision of the aforesaid rule appointment has to be made on the recommendation of Public Service Commission. The competent authority in order to refuse to accept the recommendation of Sindh Public Service Commission shall have acted under some rule or at least for some cogent reason.The competent authority may have discretion in the matter still then the discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles, that is, it should be exercised in good faith having regard to all relevant considerations and for public purposes and in accordance with the law and it should be exercised justly, fairly and reasonably. It should not be exercised arbitrary or 'capriciously."
10. ' In the case of Salman Adil Siddiqui and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 220, a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the petitioners' grievance that:--- "Despite having been selected for appointment through the Public Service Commission.
11. Respondents have not been issued appointment letters by the respondent and contention of respondent that recommendations of Sindh Public Service Commission were forwarded with the summary to the competent authority and no orders have been passed and in the absence of such order, there is no surety for appointment" it was held that "with profound respects, we are unable to uphold the view that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission are meant to be utterly meaningless unless approval is accorded by the appointing authority at his sweet will and pleasure in his own time. Though such recommendations may not create the strict vested right at least they give rise to a legitimate expectation and it is well-settled that the recommendations of such a body ordained by the Constitution cannot be brushed aside except for very good reasons as repeatedly held by the superior Courts. One may conveniently refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Manthar Ali Jatoi v. Government of Sindh 1998 PLC (C.S.) 344, which we are bound to follow. The second important and most disturbing aspect of the case is that once the recommendations of the Commission were available with the Department way back in June, 2006, an appropriate order in terms thereof or rejecting them for valid and proper reasons' ought to have been passed within a reasonable time. Any authority endowed with the performance of public duties cannot neglect to perform its duties indefinitely as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Chairman Regional Transport Authority v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company PLD 1991 SC 14, where it was held that a public duty must be (sic) Commission would have been reasonable but there seems absolutely no justification for delaying the matter for about 15 months which has caused harm not only to the petitioners but even to cause of education in the whole Province. For the foregoing reasons, we would allow this petition and direct that the decision on a summary be taken within one month from today and in case no decision is effected, all the, recommendations would be deemed to have been duly appointed with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month."
12. ' In the case of Muhammad Rasheed v. Government of Punjab and others 2006 SCMR 1082, in reply to contention that appointment letters was not issued on account of ban imposed, the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the order of single Judge directing the Government to issue appointment letters.
13. ' We would like to mention here that although Mr. Noorani learned Additional Advocate-General make an attempt to justify respondents' act for scraping recommendation of respondent No,3 as same was made during the period when there was ban, when confronted why respondent issued appointment letter to Deputy District Public Prosecutor (BPS-19) the learned Advocate could- not have any explanation.
14. ' In a recent judgment in C.Ps. Nos.D-1371, D-1475 and 1395 of 2008 Dr. Marvi Shah and others v.
15. Province of Sindh and others it was held that recommendation of Sindh Public Service Commission cannot be brushed aside or distracted by the new Government set up, merely for the reason that the procedure followed was not according to their wishes, but as per the decision of the previous Government.
16. ' We would like to mention here that section 8(4) of Sindh Criminal -Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Ordinance, 2006 also provided that "no direct recruitment shall be made on regular basis to the post of District Public Prosecutor, Deputy District Public Prosecutor, Assistant District Prosecutor etc. Except on the recommendation of Sindh Public Service Commission.
17. Sufficient material is available on record that all the prescribed procedures were followed and after inviting applications through press the respondent No,3 conducted written test and then conducted interviews of successful candidates and thereafter recommended their names for appointment. The respondent No,2 after following all required procedures issued offer of appointment to petitioners. The petitioner submitted required documents along with acceptance letter within prescribed time. The respondent cannot after accepting recommendation recall the same and/or scrape recommendation once accepted. Respondents are, therefore, directed to issue posting orders within 30 days from the date of order and in case such posting orders are not issued then petitioners are entitled for payment/salary from such date.