' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- The report and parawise comments have been filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has gone through the same and is ready to argue the petition.
2. With the consent of the parties this petition is being treated as a Pacca matter and shall be disposed of on the basis of the available record.
The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to adjust and appoint the petitioner on the job applied for by him i.e, to the post of Junior Clerk, in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1974.
4. Rule 17-A of the Rules (ibid), inter alia, provides that only one child of a Government Servant who dies during service or is declared invalidated/incapacitated for further service can get a job against a post in BPS-1 to BPS-5 in the Department in which such Government Servant was 'working at the time of his death provided the dependant of the Government Servant is otherwise eligible for the post.
5. The grounds for invoking the above provision are stated to be that the petitioner's father was a Government Servant who died during service on 14-8-1982. The petitioner was a minor at that time and upon attaining majority he is entitled to get appointed to a post in BPS-1 to BPS-5 in his father's Department.
6. It is submitted that in the instant case the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Clerk under Rule 17-A of the Rules (ibid) but after being interviewed by the District Recruitment Committee, Jhang he was verbally informed on 1-6-2007 that his application has been rejected as his elder brother had already been appointed as Naib Qasid on 20-10-1993 under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid. It is contended that the petitioner's brother had in fact been recruited as Naib Qasid on the basis of merit and not under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid. The petitioner consequently filed an appeal before respondent No,1 on 25-6-2007 against the verbal order dated 1-6-2007. The petitioner's appeal was accepted on 25-9-2007 and respondent No,2 was directed to re-consider the matter but respondent No,2 did not comply with the order dated 25-9-2007. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file an application before the District Coordination Officer, Jhang for implementation of respondent Not s order dated 25-9-2007 but to no avail. It is further contended that the petitioner is not being appointed under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid in pursuance of the orders of the District Coordination Officer, Jhang and respondent No,1 whereas other candidates have been accommodated from time to time on the basis of the Rules ibid. A case of discrimination has been made out.
7. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has controverted the stance of the petitioner and has drawn the attention of this Court to the report and parawise comments and the copies of the documents appended thereto. Submits that the petitioner's brother namely Saifullah was appointed as Naib Qasid on 20-9-1993 under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid. In support thereof he refers to the copy of the petitioner's brother's appointment letter and the minutes of the meeting of the District Recruitment Committee, Jhang held in the office of the then Deputy Commissioner, Jhang on 20-10-1993 in pursuance whereof the petitioner's brother was appointed. The learned Assistant Advocate-General contends that under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid only one child of a deceased Government Servant can be accommodated. In the instant case the petitioner's elder brother has already availed of the benefit under the said provision, therefore, the petitioner cannot invoke the same. Further submits that the order passed by respondent No,1 is erroneous inasmuch as the petitioner's brother was appointed in pursuance of Rule 17-A of the Rules (ibid) as is borne out from the record. Prays that the petition be dismissed being misconceived.
8. When confronted with the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's brother was not appointed under the provisions of Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid. The said appointment was made on the basis of merit as has been declared by respondent No,l. Further submits that the petitioner is being discriminated against by the respondents.
9. Having gone through the record and considering the arguments of the parties this Court does not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the contents of the minutes of the meeting of the District Recruitment Committee, Jhang held on 20-10-1993 under the chairmanship of the then Deputy Commissioner, Jhang. The case of the petitioner's brother was fully discussed and considered during the said meeting and the petitioner's brother's appointment letter was issued as a consequence of the decision of the Committee dated 20-10- 1993 which was in turn based on the provisions of Notification No,SOR-III-2-42/92, dated 28-8-1993, i.e, Rule 17-A, of the Rules, (ibid). And as only one child of a deceased Government Servant can benefit from Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid, the petitioner is precluded from invoking the same.
10. So far as the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has been discriminated against, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any specific instance in this respect.
11. Under the circumstances this petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly. 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.