' MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J.--- Since written comments have been filed and both the sides are ready to argue the case, therefore, the same is being decided as "Pakka Case".
' The petitioners pray for a direction against the respondents to complete the remaining process of recruitment and interview of the candidates who have already passed the written test against the posts of Assistant-Director (BPS-17) in Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF).
2. Facts, in brief, are that four posts of Assistant Director in Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (BPS-17) were advertised through leading newspapers on 15-7-2011. In response thereof, 779 candidates including the present petitioner applied and after scrutiny, 57 candidates were short-listed, who were called for written test in which 35 candidates appeared. Out of these candidates, only 16 passed the test including the present petitioner. It is stated that thweafter the respondents decided to re-issue the call letter for written test to all the candidates who previously could not pass the written test.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is, therefore, that his call letter for interview could not have been withdraw and the candidates who could not pass the test cannot be recalled to make a selection of their blue eyed chaps. In support of his contentions, leaned counsel relied upon the case-laws cited as 2011 SCMR 944, PLD 2010 Lahore 230, 2009 PLC (C.S.) 966, PLD 2010 Lahore 123, 2011 MLD 1494, PLD 2011 Supreme Court 44, PLD 2011 Supreme Court 22 and 2011 PLC (C.S.) 116.
4. On the other hand, respondents in their written comments' admitted the factual position that 16 candidates out of 779 had passed the written test but due to the complaints of the candidates, it was decided by the authority to give a fair chance of selection by holding the written test again after calling the same candidates without fresh advertisement.
5. It is also objected that the rules of Housing Foundation are non-statutory and writ is not maintainable as declared by this Court in Writ Petition No,2425 of 2011. It is further submitted that in a similar matter, the Hon'ble Balochistan High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the petitions.
6. Heard and record perused.
7. Firstly, to answer the objection about the maintainability of the instant petition, I place reliance upon Judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of "Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation through Director-General Islamabad and another v.
Muhammad Akram Ali Zai, Deputy Controller PBC, . Islamabad (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 1079) wherein it was held that:- "Company like Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation which is functioning under the direct control of the Federal Government and its affairs are being run by the functionaries of the Government cannot claim immunity from judicial scrutiny of a decision made by its functionaries if the same is found against its declared policy or infringes the rights of its Beneficiaries---Housing Foundation by virtue of its character and functions and distinguishable features having assumed the role of an official agency of Federal Government does not stand at part to that of the private companies registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984--- Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation for all practical purposes is deemed to be an official body of Ministry of Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan, therefore, its acts and deeds are subject to the judicial review of .The superior courts."
8. In view of above, this constitution petition is maintainable.
9. The petitioner through the instant petition has called in question the fitness of the candidature, recruitment process and male fide actions of the respondents respecting withdrawal of his interview call letter which was issued to him after passing the test. It has been held by the Superior Courts time and again that good governance is the demand of the present day and if transparency is overlooked, the candidates general public would be having a sense of deprivation which would lead to frustration, dejection, humiliation and depression. Such bad goverance would also create a chaos in the society. The merit, in any case, has to be considered and the successful candidates cannot be ignored only because the favourite candidates of the respondents could not qualify the test. The respondents have not taken a stand that test process was not transparent or the petitioner had passed the test with unfair means.
10. After qualifying the test out of 779, the successful candidates deserve appreciation and reward instead of pushing them to the wall. Asking for a fair treatment and equality of law is the right of every citizen guaranteed by Article 25' of the Constitution and courts are under obligation to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens. The petitioner's result has not been challenged by the respondents and there is no law/rule to recall the failed candidates for the same test, which they could not qualify. The action of the respondents for withdrawal of the interview call letters of 16 successful candidates is, therefore, declared illegal and the decision of the respondents for recalling of the failed candidates for fresh test is set-aside. The respondents are directed to complete the recruitment process out of successful candidates in a fair and transparent manner.
11. With the, above observations the petition is disposed of 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.