ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J. - This judgment will dispose of the two writ petitions i.e. (W.Ps. Nos. 876 and 878 of 2007-BWP), as both have arisen of of a common impugned order.
2. Pursuant to the publication cited in the various daily newspapers, the petitioners applied for appointment against the posts of the Dispensers. The Departmental Selection Committee (D.S.C.) after' taking necessary proceedings and conducting interview found the petitioners eligible and recommended their names for appointments to the competent authority whereupon formal letters were also issued to the petitioners who resumed the charge of their assignments and continued to perform their duties till 2.3.2007 when the respondent No. 1 through an office order held the appointments of the petitioners in-abeyance and later on by an order dated 31.3.2007 proceeded to withdraw the appointment letters. The result was that their services stood terminated.
3. The advertisement on the basis of which the petitioners applied for appointments as Dispensers provided for the following qualifications of the candidates:-- [( URDU TEXT )]r-'f' ^ ii.u ^ "
4. The petitioners had relied upon and produced certificates from the Skill Development Council, Islamabad, National Standing Board NTB, Ministry of Labour Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis, Government Of Pakistan. The certificates were named as Training Course of Patients Care Technicians/Dispensers. This was accepted as a valid qualification and the petitioners were given the requisite appointments.
5. On 2.3.2007 the respondent No. 1 Executive District Officer Health, Bahawalpur issued the letter to the following effect:- '"The appointment orders of the following Dispensers on contract basis, at the various health institutions issued vide letter No. & date mentioned against each are hereby withheld with immediate effect, till the clarification from Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, regarding equivalency of their Dispenser's Diploma under Skill Development Council, Islamabad National Training Board
(NTB) Ministry of. Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistani, Government of Pakistan.
6. Among the addressees of the letter, the petitioner Muhammad Kashif (writ petitioner in W.P. No. 87o-2007) and Syed Zeeshan Hameed (writ petitioner in W.P. No. 878 of 2007) were mentioned respectively at Serial No. 6 and Serial No. 2. Afterwards on 31.3.2007 the respondent No. 1 Executive District Officer Health, Bahawalpur issued another letter whereby the appointments of the petitioners were withdrawn on the ground that by virtue of the requisite clarification the said Diploma was neither equivalent to the Diploma of category. Issued by the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, nor the Skill Development Council, Islamabad National Training Board (NTB) Ministry of Labour, Manpower & Overseas Pakistani, Government of Pakistan was affiliated/recognized by the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore,
7. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the aforesaid order dated 31.3.2007 on the ground that the same is without lawful jurisdiction and has adversely affected their rights and they have not been provided an opportunity of hearing which besides being against the spirit of natural justice is also hit by the principle of locus Poenitentiae. As to the qualification held by them it has been maintained on behalf of the petitioners that the same is in accordance with the requirements of the respondents. According to the learned counsel the Services of the petitioners were on contract basis for three years, which could only be terminated on account of inefficiency, misconduct, wilful absence and corruption as stipulated in the letters of their appointment.
8. In the parawise comments the respondents have reiterated that the Dispensers Diploma of the petitioners does not have the equivalence with such Diploma issued or recognized by any Board or Agency of Pakistan, It has been contended that in the absence of such equivalence the qualification held by. The petitioners could not be accepted as the one presented or required for the post against which they were appointed.
9. In order to resolve the controversy the announcement of the vacancy by publication in the newspapers has to be seen because this is the basic document, which provides the requisite qualification for the post against which the applicants were invited by the respondents. The requirement in this behalf lias already been reproduced in para No. 3 above. What it required was that the candidates should be:---
(1) Matric with Science; and
(2) Holder of:
(i) Dispenser Diploma or
(ii) Pharmacy Assistant Course FROM
(i) Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore.
Or
(ii) Any Government Approved Institution.
10. What follows from the above is that a candidate ought to have been Matriculate with Science and holder of a Dispenser. Diploma or Pharmacy Assistant. This Diploma or Course could be from any institution approved by the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, or any other Government approved institution, It was nowhere provided in the advertisement that the Diploma or the Pharmacy Assistant Course must necessarily be recognized by the Punjab' Medical Faculty, Lahore. The reference of Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, was only one part of the requirement. The other equally valid requirement for the qualification was that it could also be such as would have been issued or recognized by any Government approved institution. Thus the candidates drawing the qualification either from an institution recognized or affiliated with Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, or from any Government approved institution were duly qualified for the post advertised by the respondents.
11. The question of equivalence of the qualification from Government approved institution with that of the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, or the reorganization/affiliation of the Government approved institution with Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, was neither mentioned in the advertisement inviting applications nor was required or relevant for the purpose of impugned appointments, It has not been and cannot be maintained that the Government approved institution was to be read as a part of the recognition of the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore. These were two independent situations and were also considered independently of each other, which is evident from the fact that the selection committee and the appointing authority both accepted the certificates of the petitioners.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents has maintained that the intention of the appointing authority was clear from the contents of the advertisement wherein the requisite qualifications were mentioned. According to him the qualifications ought to have been recognized by the Punjab Medical Faculty. As already stated, the requirements as envisaged by the advertisement were independent and different from each other and they could not be subdued to the auspices of the Medical Faculty only.
13. Where a person or authority by visible representations leads another to a certain impression, which the latter has also acted upon, bestows certain rights on the latter. Then the former cannot be allowed to go back upon its own representation to the detriment of the latter. This is the admitted principle of estoppel recognized under all norms of law. In the instant case the petitioners genuinely acted upon the requirements of the respondents did not mislead or conceal any thing from them and showed to the respondents only what they were. This was duly considered by the respondents as well as the Selection Committee consisting of a number of persons, was accepted as valid qualification and appointments were provided to the petitioners.
14. The petitioners had thus acquired vested right to continue with the appointments in accordance with the appointments in accordance with the terms and conditions settled by the appointing authority in the letters of appointment. From this point of view as well the respondents could not unilaterally take an action to the detriment of the petitioner by terminating their services.
15. It is universally accepted and recognized principle that no body should be condoned unheard.
Under Article 4 of the Constitution it is an unalienable right of every citizen that he be treated in accordance with law, including Natural Law. Reliance may be placed on Ghulam Muhammad and 24 others v. Superintending Engineer Rice Canal, Larkana and others (1998 PLC (C.S.) 87). The respondents as already stated, proceeded unilaterally and did not provide any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before passing the impugned order against them. The action of respondent thus was also against the principles of natural justice.
16. The rule of locus Poenitentiae has also been pressed into service on behalf of the .Respondents, which again is primarily based on the contention that the qualifications of the petitioners were inadequate in this behalf, It has been vehemently argued that inspite of the fact that the appointments had been given to the petitioners and the transaction has been accomplished, the respondents could withdraw their orders because the qualifications of the petitioners defected. The learned counsel has argued that the appointments having been -secured on the basis of incompetent certificates, the power of recede still remained available with the respondents. He has further stated that the basic appointments of the petitioners being without lawful authority the superstructures of service and the privilege drawn by them would fall on the ground automatically.
The case of Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Younas (2007 SCMR 1835) has been relied upon in this behalf.
17. The law formulating the principle of locus Poenitentiae is no doubt available to the government and other authorities competent to make an order. This power of receding remains available till decisive step is taken in the matter. If, however, once the order of the appointment has taken legal effect it cannot be withdrawn or rescinded, In the present case all decisive steps had been taken by the respondents.
18. The question of qualifications of the applicants was one of the satisfaction of the Departmental Selection Committee or the Appointing Authority and none else. As the Departmental Selection Committee as well as the appointing authority both had accepted the qualifications of the petitioners to the standard of their requirements, the appointments of the petitioners and assumption of duties by them settled down alf decisive steps. They were not given ineffective appointment nor was it subject to any further verification. The principle of locus Poenitentiae exhaustively laid down in the case of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v.
Muhammad Hamayat Ullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407) squarely applies to the cases of the petitioners.
19. If the intention of the respondents had been to seek the qualifications recognized by the Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore, the text of the requirement given in the advertisement would have essentially been different. Rather it would have been brief, plain and simple instead of laying down multiple dimensions of the requisite qualification.
20. While undertaking the process of recruitment and making appointments to initial posts it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to apply their conscious mind to all relevant .Issues, It is supposed to have prescribed and advertised the terms and conditions of appointment including the requisite qualifications comprehensively and carefully. The requisite qualification must always be specified with precise clarity and without any ambiguity. Where it has once prescribed the requisite qualification, the applications of candidates have to be examined in the same reference and if in that process it has accepted the certificates and qualifications of the candidate without any reservation and on its basis has also given unconditional appointment in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down by it, the same cannot be jeopardized or withdrawn on an a condition or consideration extraneous to the letters of appointment.
21. The demand for qualification or standard of qualification at post selection stage after having j|ducted the candidates into actual service for many months offends against the rule of estoppel as well as the locus Poenitentiae besides the law of natural justice.
22. If the appointing authority like that of the case of the petitioners has acted technically and has not taken due care while specifying the requisite qualification or equivalence of qualification without proper application of mind the civil servants, as laid down in the case of Collector Customs and Central Excise, Peshawar and 2 others v. Abdul Waheed and 7 others (2004 SCMR 303), could not be made to suffer for whimsical and mechanical acts of the respondent Authority. The certificates of the petitioners having been accepted as valid, proper and equivalent to that as required by the respondents and the question of their equivalence having not been raised before appointments, the same could not be raised or subjected to the opinion of a foreign authority at a subsequent stage. The impugned action of respondents is, therefore, not maintainable in law.
23. In view of the what has been discussed above, it is crystal clear that the respondents having once accepted the qualifications of the petitioners and having given them appointments against the posts advertised by them were not competent to question the validity thereof. They also could not subjugate the question of qualification or equivalence of the certificates of the petitioners with the requirements mentioned by them, to the satisfaction of foreign authority including the Punjab Medical Faculty.
24. The qualification once prescribed by the respondents could not be altered to the detriment of the petitioners after the final steps regarding the appointments and services of the petitioners had been taken. As the qualification of the petitioners was neither insufficient nor defective, the matter had become past and closed transaction before the date of the impugned letter/orders dated 31.3.2007.
25. As a sequel to the above, the impugned order No. 4436-50, dated 31.3.2007 is declared to be is illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the petitioners. The same is therefore, set aside. The petitioners shall be deemed to be in-service and allowed to continue their services as Dispensers in continues their services as Dispensers in continuation of their appointments. They shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
26. The petitioners have certainly suffered mental anguish because of the unwarranted and unlawful impugned orders. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed with costs.