Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04.12.2009 passed by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court comprising three Hon'ble Judges of the said Court whereby some of the writ petitions of the petitioners challenging the termination of their services were dismissed whereas in relation to other categories of writ petitions on the same subject matter, the official respondents were directed to constitute a fresh Committee, hold interviews and to decide about their fate.
2. The facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the instant petitions were that in April, 2006, the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 (Act No, III of 2006), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act", was passed with a view to establishing an independent, effective and efficient service for prosecution of criminal cases, ensuring prosecutorial independence, for better coordination in the criminal justice system of the Province of the Punjab. By means of an advertisement published in the Daily The Nation dated 12.07.2006, the Public Prosecution Department, Government of the Punjab, hereinafter referred to as "the Prosecution Department", advertised various posts to be filled on contract basis for a period of three years extendable on performance basis in terms of the Recruitment Policy/Contract Appointment Policy, 2004 of the Government of the Punjab. One Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, Advocate filed Writ Petition No, 8456 of 2006 in the Lahore High Court challenging the validity of the aforesaid advertisement, as also the appointments of some Additional Prosecutors General, Deputy Prosecutors General and District Public Prosecutors, etc which had earlier been in relaxation of Rules 4(4) & 17 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1974, Recruitment Policy and Contract Appointment Policy of the Government of the Punjab till arrival of selectees. He prayed that the impugned advertisement may be declared illegal and void ab initio and the respondents may be directed to send the requisition for filling of the relevant posts to the Punjab Public Service Commission, hereinafter called "the Commission". A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2006 disposed of the petition with the observations, inter alia, that with a view to mobilizing/operationalizing the newly established Prosecution Department, contract appointments were necessary, therefore, the impugned temporary contractual appointments proposed to be made by the respondents were lawful and valid, but the respondents would conduct recruitment process of contractual appointees through a panel of qualified selectors that shall include a retired Judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court so as to ensure adherence to merit and transparency in the selection process; a short contractual term of contract appointment not exceeding one year would be offered as the Commission had refused to review or confirm the temporary appointments already made or the similar appointments projected to be made during the period of transition; and that the respondents shall forward within six months requisition to the Commission for induction, recruitment and appointment on regular basis.
3. Upto March 2007, as many as 827 prosecutors with different titles/grades, including the petitioners in all the three petitions, were appointed by the Government of the Punjab without any test/interview by the Selection Committee, though such a Committee had been constituted for the purpose of the Recruitment Policy/Contract Appointment Policy, 2004;
4. In compliance with the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, the Government of the Punjab reconstituted the Selection Committee, which comprised the. Secretary, Prosecution Department (Chairman), a retired Judge of the High Court, a retired Member of the Civil Service and the Prosecutor General Punjab (members). The Committee was mandated to review all appointments on temporary basis made against posts in the Prosecution Department, strictly following the procedure laid down in the Recruitment Policy, 2004. The reconstituted Committee conducted interviews of the temporary/contractual appointee-prosecutors from 12.04.2007 to 12.04.2008 and declared the final results on 29.05.2008. On 25.07.2008 the services of 488 prosecutors, including petitioners in Civil Petition No, 2199 of 2009, who did not qualify in the interviews were terminated. On the other hand, those who qualified in the interviews were retained in service on the terms and conditions already settled. The petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos, 146 and 252 of 2010, some of whom are the private respondents in Civil Petition No, 2199 of 2009 fell in this category.
5. The termination of service was assailed in different writ petitions filed in the Lahore High Court. In some of the writ petitions, it was pleaded that as per the offer letters, the appointment of the petitioners was on temporary/contract basis until the arrival of selectees of the Commission or the selectees under the Contract Policy and that since no such selectees had arrived, their appointment could not be terminated and they were entitled to continue in service on their respective posts. Others claimed (e.g. petitioner Ch. Fayyaz Ahmed Warraich, DPP, Gujranwala) that no condition regarding review/ confirmation having been provided in the offer letter, their services could not be terminated due to their failure in the interview and they had a vested right to serve on their post till the time any selectee had arrived. The composition of the Committee was attacked by some of the petitioners on the ground that on various occasions all the four original members of the Committee appointed by the competent authority were not present and at times, the nominees of the, original members who in fact were strangers participated in the meetings of the Committee, which vitiated the proceedings of the Committee - there being no scope in law for further delegation of the powers and functions of the Committee. The proceedings of such Committees were alleged to be coram non judice. Challenge was thrown to the allocation of marks giving more weightage to the interview as against the academic record, which was misused by the members of the Committee, The results thus prepared could not be made the basis of petitioners' removal from service. It was also submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioners was not a termination simpliciter, but it carried the stigma of having failed in the interview, therefore, removal without show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing was illegal.
6. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court seized with the matter, vide order dated 07.05.2009 held that on arrival of selectees of the Commission, the policy of FIFO (first in - first out) would be applied. Hence, on the basis of the said direction, the Government of the Punjab vide order dated 23.05.2009 terminated the services of certain prosecutors who otherwise had been cleared by the Committee. Thus, petitioner Abid Iqbal Hafiz and others filed before the High Court CMA No, 2244 of 2009 in Writ Petition No, 9394 of 2008 stating therein, inter alia, that their services could not be terminated because they had duly passed interview conducted by the Committee. They further pleaded that the order requiring the adoption of the policy of FIFO (first in-first out) was passed in their absence, therefore the same be recalled and the policy of LIFO (last in - first out) be ordered to be applied; the order of their termination be suspended and they may be allowed to continue on their jobs. However, the Full Bench vide order dated 02.06.2009 rejected the said application holding, inter alia, that the policy of LIFO was applicable in retrenchment cases, which was not the position in the instant case. Against the said order, they filed Civil Petition No, 1052 of 2009 in this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2009 with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Additional Advocate General Punjab in the following terms:--
(1) Let the petitioners continue in service as if their services had not been terminated;
(2) The learned High Court before whom the application was filed which was dismissed should provide opportunity of hearing to them and decide their cases along with the cases of the others in view of the propositions which was laid before this Court or on any other point which may arise before it;
(3) The petitioners would not be claiming any emoluments from the department till the final decision of the case; and
(4) The learned High Court may dispose of the petitions expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from receipt of this order."
In the post remand proceedings, the learned Full Bench of the Lahore High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the writ petitions vide judgment dated 04.12.2009 as per terms stated therein.
7. Civil Petitions Nos, 2123, 2134, 2142, 2161-2169, 21942211, 2213-2216, 2219, 2221-2223, 2235, 2237-2242 & 2244-2249 of 2009 and 2-4 & 6-13 of 2010 filed against the judgment dated 04.12.2009, impugned herein, were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2010 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties in the following terms:--
(1) The Government of the Punjab through Prosecutor General be directed to manage examinations of all the prosecutors presently functioning in the province in terms of subsection
(4) of Section 8 of the Act in two phases:-- (a)The examination of the petitioners shall be concluded by the Punjab Public Service Commission within two months commencing from 11.01.2010 to 11.03.2010 as per procedure. Besides above candidates, any other candidate interested in appointment against any of the vacancies, which may be advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission shall also be eligible to file application and such applications shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with the service rules prevailing in the Province; and (b)Other than the petitioners, there are prosecutors working in the Province who had been retained. They have also to undertake examination of Punjab Public Service Commission to meet the requirement of subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act. In respect thereof, the exercise shall be completed within next two months commencing from 12.03.2010 to 12.05.2010 and the fresh candidates interested in recruitment shall also be eligible to apply along with them. Their cases shall also be dealt with by the Punjab Public Service Commission strictly in accordance with law as noted herein above.
(2) Petitioners have not been allowed one month's notice pay in lieu of termination of their services, therefore, Government of the Punjab shall pay them notice pay of one month and compensation in addition to it for the equal period (one month) shall also be paid to them. However, this arrangement shall come to an end on completion of the period of two months stipulated above by the Punjab Public Service Commission.
(3)There should not be any discrimination between the candidates either belonging to the first batch or the second batch and they should be treated at par before the Punjab Public Service Commission.
(4)The above arrangement has been made without prejudice to the impugned judgment which shall remain intact with its full force as a result whereof the Prosecution Branch is not obliged to entrust work to the petitioners during the stipulated period mentioned herein above. Furthermore, any observation against the candidates appearing before the Punjab Public Service Commission made against them at any stage shall not be treated stigma against them while appearing before the Commission.
8. In canvassing for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment, Mr. A.K. Dogar, learned Sr.
ASC argued that the Court was required to dilate upon the question whether in the light of Section 8(4) of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the prosecutors appointed on temporary/contract basis were liable to be removed on arrival of the selectees of the Commission.
According to the learned counsel, the terms and conditions of service offering the appointment "till arrival of selectees of the Commission or the selectees under the Contract. Appointment Policy", which would be "subject to review/confirmation by a Committee constituted for the purpose" rendered their appointment akin to a temporary/officiating appointment for an indefinite period, which was not permissible in view of the law laid down in Abdul Majid Sheikh v. Mushaffe Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 208). The learned counsel emphasized that in view of the law laid down in a chain of authorities, e.g. Secretary to Government of NWFP v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 413), Managing Director, SSGC Ltd. v. Ghulam Abbas (PLD 2003 SC 724), Collector of Customs and Central Excise v.
Abdul Waheed (2004 SCMR 303), Water and Power Development Authority v. Abbas Ali Malano (2004 SCMR 630), Federation of Pakistan v. Gohar Riaz (2004 SCMR 1662), Muhammad Shoaib v.
Government of NWFP (2005 SCMR 85), Muhammad Zahid Iqbal v. DEO Mardan (2006 SCMR 285), Province of Punjab v. Zulfiqar Ali (2006 SCMR 678), Abdul Salim v. Government of NWFP (2007 PLC
(CS) 179) and Fuad Asadullah Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLJ 2009 SC 441), the Prosecution Department could not be allowed to take advantage of its own lapses and irregularities and to proceed to terminate the services of the incumbents on the basis of those lapses and irregularities.
He vehemently reiterated his contention urged before the High Court that all those persons who possessed the requisite qualifications and whose appointment was made by an authority competent to do so, were "regularly appointed" who could not be removed from service except by recourse to disciplinary proceedings, i,e, issuance of show-cause notice, etc. The learned counsel also urged that the Government of the Punjab recently having regularized the services of temporary/ad-hoc/contract appointees in different departrhents/ organizations, e.g. the health and education sectors, the services of the petitioners were also required to be similarly regularized under the principle of equality envisaged by Article 25 of the Constitution.
9. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, ASC, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos, 146 & 252 of 2010 adopted the arguments made by Mr. A.K. Dogar, Sr. ASC.
10.Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari, learned Prosecutor General argued that the petitioners had been directed to approach the Commission for regular appointment or the Committee for continuation of their ternporary/contract appointment on the terms and conditions of their service. According to him, though a regular appointment was different from a contract appointment, but while making appointments on contract basis, certain criteria for selection of the incumbents must be adopted, which was not done in the instant case. Rather, the temporary/contract appointment letters were issued without holding any tests/interviews. To fill the said lacuna, the Selection Committee as reconstituted under the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, was mandated to review/confirm the contract appointments. The contract appointments in question were contrary to the principles of fair play, transparency and merit.
11. The learned Full Bench of the High Court, in its judgment took the view that the said appointments were nothing but a stopgap, an interim and a transitory arrangement. Having considered the matter from different angles, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the view of the Full Bench of the High Court. Soon after the advertisement, the matter was agitated by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal Advocate before the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No, 8456 of 2006 and the judgment dated 11.12.2006 was passed, which was accepted by all inasmuch as the Government of the Punjab implemented the same by reconstitution of the Selection Committee for review/confirmation whereas all the prosecutors including the petitioners appeared before the Committee for interviews some of whom qualified while others failed. Those who qualified in the interviews were allowed to continue their temporary/contract appointment.
The action of the Government having been scrutinized by the High Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review, stood merged into a judicial decision, and it was the judicial order, which held the field. The temporary/contractual appointments of the petitioners/prosecutors were reviewed by the Committee reconstituted under the order of the High Court. Since the said judgment was not challenged by anyone, it attained finality.
12. Section 8 of the Act provided for appointment of various categories of prosecutors to conduct criminal cases in the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Federal Shariat Court, a Special Court and the Courts at the district level. The manner of appointment of different categories of prosecutors was laid down in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 8 ibid, which read as under:-- "Section 8. Appointments....................
(3)All the appointments, except that of the Prosecutor General, to various posts in the Service, shall be made through initial recruitment in the manner as maybe prescribed: Provided that at least fifty percent appointments on the posts of Additional Prosecutor General and Deputy Prosecutor General shall be made through promotion.
(4)No direct recruitment shall be made on regular basis to the posts of District Public Prosecutor, Deputy District Public Prosecutor, Assistant District Prosecutor, Additional Prosecutor General and Deputy Prosecutor General except on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission: Provided that the Government shall, by a special order, invite one time options from the persons already performing functions of the Prosecutors on regular basis in the Province and may induct them in the service upon such terms and conditions which are not detrimental to their existing terms and conditions of service."
13. Rules 2(d), 4 and 5 of the Rules provided as under:-- "2. (d) "initial recruitment" means initial recruitment in the Service on regular or contract basis; "4. Manner of appointment.--(1) Appointment to a post in the Service may be made through initial recruitment, promotion or transfer.
(2) The Government may require a person appointed to a post in the Service or a candidate for a post in the. Service to take an examination in the manner as it may specify.
(3) No person shall be appointed through initial recruitment on regular basis except on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission.
"5. Appointment through initial recruitment.--(1) The appointing authority shall make appointments on the posts in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule."
(2)A person appointed through initial recruitment on regular basis shall remain on probation for a period of two years and the appointing authority shall not confirm the person in the Service unless he successfully completes the training and passes the examination, as may be specified by the Government.
(3)If a person appointed in the Service through initial recruitment fails to complete the training or fails in the specified examination, within a specified time in three attempts, the appointing authority shall terminate his services,"
A perusal of the above quoted provisions of the Act and the Rules would show that sub-section (3) envisaged "initial recruitment" while subsection (4) laid down that the "direct recruitment on regular basis would be made on the recommendation of the Commission". These two provisions were further elaborated by the provisions of Rule 2(d) and Rule 4(1) & (3) of the Rules. Thus, initial recruitment may either be made on regular basis or on contract basis. However, the Act and the Rules both clearly stipulated that the initial recruitment on regular basis would be made on the recommendation of the Commission. Rule 5(1) provided that the appointments would be made in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule. Columns 5 & 6 of the Schedule provided the minimum qualification for appointment by way of initial recruitment and promotion while column 7 laid down the method of appointment, i,e, by initial recruitment, transfer or promotion. Under Rule 5(2), where a person was appointed through initial recruitment on regular basis, he would remain on probation for a period of two years and would not be confirmed unless he had successfully completed the training and passed the examination specified by the Government. Under Rule 5(3), if the person so appointed failed to complete the training or pass the examination within a specified time, in three attempts, the appointing authority would terminate his services.
14. Under Section 16, the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder were made applicable to the appointments under the Act. By virtue of rule 4(i) & (ii) of the' Punjab Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978, recruitment on contract for a specified period or for a period of one year or less pending selection of a candidate on the basis of test conducted by the Commission was excluded from the purview of the Commission. The appointments in question, having been made under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004 of the Government of the Punjab would be "initial recruitment on contract basis" within the meaning of Section 8(3) of the Act read with rule 2(d) of the Rules obviously limited to the duration specified in the appointment letter, and, in no way, could be termed as regular appointments within the contemplation of Section 8(4) read with Rules 4 & 5 of the Rules. Thus, reliance by the learned counsel on the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act read with Rule 5(1) of the Rules was of little help for the proposition that the appointments in question were regular appointments.
15. The learned Prosecutor General Punjab produced the voluminous record of appointments of the petitioners/prosecutors for our perusal. The offer letters of appointment issued to the prosecutors provided, inter alia, as under:-- (1)The appointment will be temporary and on contract basis till arrival of selectees of Punjab Public Service Commission or the selectees under contract appointment policy; (2)The appointment will be subject to review/confirmation by a committee constituted for the purpose.
In some cases, the appointment on contract was made "till the recruitment under Contract Appointment Policy" while in others the appointment was made "till arrival of the incumbents of the posts". In some of the cases, the above noted Condition No, 2 regarding review/confirmation by the Committee may not have been mentioned, but the fact remained that there was no ambiguity in the terms and conditions of service offered to the petitioners. The termination of their services was contingent upon the occurrence of specific eventualities, viz, the arrival of the selectees of the Committee or those of the Commission, or the failure of the incumbents to clear the prescribed test/interview by the Committee constituted for the purpose. The orders of termination of services of the petitioners were passed after anyone of the aforesaid eventualities had occurred. In the circumstances, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the proposition that the Government was estopped from taking advantage of its own lapses, irregularities or illegalities were not attracted in the present case. The action impugned before the High Court was taken by the Government, not at its own, but in pursuance of the orders of the High Court. Having accepted the said conditions of service, the petitioners had no locus standi to file the writ petitions seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus to the respondents to, refrain from terminating their services and to retain them on their present posts on regular basis, which the learned Full Bench of the Lahore High Court rightly declined to issue. Further, it was argued by some of the counsel before the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court that since their clients/petitioners had been cleared/retained by the Committee, they would continue in service for the period of the contract appointment, i,e, until the arrival of the selectees of the Commission or those of the Committee.
Such an argument was destructive of the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners before us that the Department was debarred from making temporary/officiating appointments for a long period with ma la fide intention in the light of the law laid down in Abdul Magid Sheikh's case (supra) and Jafar Ali Akhtar Yousafzai v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1970 Quetta 115) and later turning up to terminate their services on the eventualities, which were their own creation.
16.It was argued that the petitioners were entitled to protection of law against the alleged illegal action of the official respondents. In this behalf, the learned counsel relied on Jamal Shah v.
Election Commission (PLD 1966 SC 1), Mir Ahmad Nawaz Khan Bugti v. Superintendent Jail Lyallpur (PLD 1966 SC 357) and Federation of Pakistan v. Ghulam Mustafa Khar (PLD 1989 SC 26). The petitioners got the appointment letters on temporary/contract basis without having undergone any test or interview. As held by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, it was a short term arrangement so as to instantly make the Prosecution Department functional and not a permanent dispensation. Thus, they were required to approach the Committee for continuing in the temporary/contractual appointment, or to appear in the examination to be conducted by the Commission for recruitment on regular basis. Such a course could hardly be termed as depriving them of the protection of law guaranteed to them under the Constitution. As held in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T. C, Mazdoor Congress (AIR 1991 SC 101), the employment under the public undertakings was a public employment and a public property and that the right to life included the right to livelihood, which could not hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority, nor any fundamental right could be surrendered or waived as held in Pakistan Muslim League (N) v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) pursuant to an agreement or an undertaking, but the fact remained that the fundamental rights were always subject to certain provisions of law. Initial appointment of the petitioners having been made without any test/interview was contrary to the principles of fair play, merit and transparency. Thus, a person who failed in the interview for a contractual appointment could not lay a valid claim to be recruited against the post in question on regular basis.
17.A prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Government of the Punjab recently having regularized the services of temporary/ad-hoc/contract appointees in different departments/organizations, e.g. the health and education sectors, the services of the petitioners were also required to be similarly regularized under the principle of equality envisaged by Article 25 of the Constitution. We are afraid the contention is misconceived. The appointment letters issued to the petitioners specifically mentioned the nature of their appointment as on temporary/contract basis until the arrival of the selectees by the Committee or those of the Commission, as the case may be. Many of the petitioners had restricted their claim before the High Court to their continuation in service on contract basis until the arrival of the selectees of the Committee or the Commission. Having first claimed that the temporary/contract appointments of the petitioners were regular because they fulfilled the prescribed qualifications and that the same were made by the competent authority,' it was submitted that the services of the petitioners were liable to be regularized in view of the law laid down in Ikram Bari v. National Bank. of Pakistan (2005 SCMR 100).The petitioners could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate in the same breath.
Neither the appointments of the petitioners were regular nor a case for regularization of their services was made out. Reference to the judgment of this Court in Ikram Bari's case was inapt wherein regularization of service was made in a completely different setting and the law laid down therein was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In any case, all the prosecutors were now being treated equally, as all of them would have an equal opportunity to seek regular appointment under the auspices of the Commission or to appear before the Selection Committee for review of their contractual appointment until the arrival of the selectees of the Commission. As held in Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 98) and subsequently reiterated by a 14- Member Bench of this Court in Sindh High Court Bar Association u. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 879), no rights would accrue to a de facto holder of a post whose right to hold the post in question was not established subsequently. Another aspect of the instant case was that the petitioners who had failed in the interviews before the Committee challenged in their writ petitions the retention of those who had qualified in the interview. Such a challenge was made in the collateral proceedings, which was not permissible in view of the law laid down in Farzand Ali's case (supra). Thus, the learned Full Bench of the Lahore High Court rightly non-suited the petitioners.
18. A yet another plea faintly argued by the learned counsel was that the termination of the services of the petitioners was not a termination simpliciter, but it carried with it the stigma of having failed in the interview held by the Committee, therefore, resort to disciplinary proceedings, e.g., issuance of show-cause notice was necessary. This plea too was unfounded. This Court vide order dated 08.01.2010, reproduced above, directed the Government of the Punjab to conduct examinations of all the prosecutors presently functioning in the :Province in terms of Section 8(4) of the Act against the posts to be advertised by the Commission in which, besides the petitioners/all the prosecutors, other eligible candidates would be participating. It was further directed in the aforesaid order that there should be no discrimination between the candidates belonging to the first or the second batch and that any observation made against any of the candidates shall not be treated as stigma against them and they should be treated alike while appearing before the Commission. Earlier, this Court vide order dated 01.07.2009 passed in Civil Petition No, 1052/2009 allowed the petitioners therein to continue in service as if their services had not been terminated. In the circumstances, the action impugned before the High Court did not any with it any stigma.
Accordingly, no show-cause notice was required to be issued to the petitioners who had already appeared before the Committee for interview, but had failed. Be that as it may, they still would have the opportunity of appearing in the examination to be conducted by the Commission for recruitments on regular basis.
19. The Committee, in its meeting dated 31.03.2007, inter alia, laid down the criteria to be followed in reviewing the temporary/contractual appointments made under the aforesaid Policy of 2004 as under:-- (2)For interview the criteria laid down by Punjab Public Service Commission would be followed according to which a candidate obtaining less than 50% marks in interview would be considered as failed and would not be confirmed in the service; and (3)The proceedings of the Committee would not be vitiated due to absence of any member of the Committee. However, the members could also be represented by some other officer in their line of command except the Chairman of the Selection Committee.
As per details mentioned in the impugned judgment, the interviews were conducted in 60 batches out of which in 8 batches all four members of the originally constituted committee were present, but in rest of the batches, either the Prosecutor General was not present and in his place someone else participated, or only one or two original members were present. Thus, the learned High Court rightly held that the interviews did not conform to the rule of transparency and fairness. Be that as it may, in line with our earlier order dated 08.01.2010, we are inclined to take the view that those who qualified in the interviews would be treated as temporary/contract appointees until the arrival of selectees of the Committee who in turn obviously would continue in contract service until the arrival of selectees of the Commission, but in no case the period of temporary/contract appointment shall exceed one year as held by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal's case (supra). Those seeking regular appointment would be required to appear in the examination to be conducted by the Commission whether they were the persons whose contract was terminated or who had been retained after they qualified in the interviews held by the Committee.
20.The learned Single Judge as also the Full Bench of the High Court rightly emphasized that recourse to the recruitment process by the Commission in accordance with the law and the rules was necessary in the interest of transparency and merit in the organization of the Prosecution Department. To achieve the same object, this Court too vide order dated 08.01.2010 passed in Civil Petition No, 2123 of 2009 etc. required the Government of the Punjab to complete the recruitment process for filling up the posts in the Prosecution Department through the agency of the Commission as per guidelines laid down therein, which have been reproduced in Para'7 above.
21.The position crystallizing from the above discussion may be summarized as under:-- (1)The persons whose cases were not competently scrutinized/examined, they shall appear before the Committee for the validation of their temporary/contract appointment subject to the language employed in the appointment letter; (2)If the petitioners opted to appear before the Committee which shall now be constituted to review the temporary short term arrangements as per their contract appointment letters, the Committee would dispose of their cases expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order; (3)The term of the temporary/contract appointment would not exceed a period of one year; (4)If the petitioners or others who had appeared in the interview before the Committee, or anyone else who wanted induction in terms of this Court's order dated 08.01.2010 passed in the aforesaid civil petitions, they would be at liberty to appear in the examination to be conducted by the Commission for regular appointment; and
(5) The Prosecution Department is directed to send requisitions to the Commission for advertisement of the posts for initial recruitment in accordance with law and the rules.
21. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.