' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.--- Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing instant writ petition, with the following prayer:-- "It is most respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be accepted and a writ be issued directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for the appointment of the petitioner as Law Officer being top of merit and cancellation of appointment letter issued in favour of respondent No,3 being ultra- constitution against facts, law and violate fundamental rights and merits."
' AND the facts presented are as under:--
2. Petitioner is serving as Legal Officer in CPWB, Home Department on contract basis. He applied through proper channe for the post of Law Officer (SPS-8) in Overseas Pakistanis Foundation under the control and management of Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis. Petitioner was called for interview and after going through a lengthy interview, Departmental Selection Committee find him eligible for the said post and verbally offer the post of Law Officer in (SPS-7) instead of (SPS-8). Thereafter, petitioner approached, respondent department for obtaining appointment letter and was informed that he is at the top of seniority list and after summoning original record and scrutiny of the same appointment letter will be issued in a short span of time. Petitioner kept on waiting for a considerable period and now it is learnt that on account of political pressure, respondent No,3 has been recruited on the above post. Petitioner again approached the respondent No,2 office and demanded for merit list which was not provided. Therefore, petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this court on the grounds that it is the fundamental right of every citizen of Pakistan guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1973 to be recruited on employment through a free and fair procedure and get employment on merit. Petitioner having 3 years experience in bar and two years experience as Law Officer, showing good performance in the interview was verbally informed to be selected on merit by the Departmental Selection Committee and was assured of the issuance of appointment letter but later on respondent department denied the fundamental right of employment of petitioner by showing favouritism in favour of respondent No,3 and by accepting political pressure. The respondent department neglected the petitioner despite the fact the he was on top of the merit list.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents through their written reply and comments refuted the contentions of petitioner and prayed for dismissal of writ petition inter alia on the grounds that instant writ petition is not maintainable against OPF being a Corporation, Autonomous Body, in view of number of pronouncements by the superior courts of the country. That petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition as he has applied for the post of law officer (Grade-8) in OPF and he is not on top of merit list. That the Departmental Selection Committee has no authority to give verbal assurance for appointment to the petitioner and they have to interview the candidates as per advertisement, moreover there is no value of any verbal order/offer in the eyes of law. Number of candidates appeared for interview, the candidate who was at the top of merit list was appointed in OPF in Grade-8 as Senior Law Officer, whereas respondent No,3 was found eligible for the post of law officer grade-7 instead of grade-8 by the Departmental Selection Committee, therefore, she was appointed against the said post. It is amazing that, how petitioner knows that respondent No,3 did not qualify in the interview and she was not approved by the Departmental Selection Committee. In fact neither petitioner nor respondent No,3 was at the top of the merit list for appointment as Law Officer in grade-8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
4. From scanning the pleadings of the parties and arguments advanced by their learned counsel, following admitted facts surfaced:--- ' Through advertisement applications were invited for an appointment against post of Law Officer (Grade-8)
' About 185 Candidates, including petitioner applied and appeared in the interview conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee.
Mr. Irfan Farooq, who was already with OPF as Law Officer (Grade-7) again appointed against advertised post of Grade-8.
Post of Law Officer (Grade-7) was not advertised, meaning thereby that requisite qualification was same.
At the time of interview, Ms. Humaira Latif was not an advocate and she enrolled with Punjab Bar Council on August 06, 2009.
There is no material in writing to substantiate the claim of petitioner that he was on top of merit list.
5. First of all, I would like to deal with the Objection of Mr. IrfanFarooq, Senior Law Officer, OPF with regard to maintainability of Writ Petition.
Respondent No,2 did not deny this fact that OPF is under the Control and Management of Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis i,e, respondent No,
1. For convenience, relevant para-2 of instant writ petition and its reply are reproduced as under:--- ' PARA-2.
' That brief facts necessitating this writ petition are that the petitioner presently as legal Officer in CPWB Home Department on contract basis, through proper channel applied for the post of Law Officer (SPS-8) in Overseas Pakistanis Foundation under the control and management of Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis. (underlining is mine)
REPLY OF PARA 2.Not denied.
' When any action of OPF, called in question on the grounds of it being mala fide, discriminatory, non-transparent, unprecedented, polluted, illegal and when such anomalies are pointed out to respondent No,1, it becomes mandatory for Controlling Authority to check and undo the wrong. In the instant matter, admitted facts clearly demonstrate that undue favour has been extended' to respondent No,3, who from nowhere inducted against the non advertised post in , a deceptive manner. Such stinking action and dubious steps do not absolve respondent No,1 from its ultimate responsibility of ensuring transparency, merit and fair play; therefore, it is held that instant writ petition is maintainable.
' Now coming to the next preposition, that whether petitioner in the peculiar circumstances, entitled to appointment as Law Officer in Grade-7 or not? There is no conclusive material on the bases of which, it may be presumed that petitioner was on the top of Merit List, creating any right in his favour. Stance of petitioner has been denied by the respondent No,2, in such an eventuality, no direction can be issued, to appoint petitioner. However, the inconsistent stance of respondent No,2 and admitted facts lead to unrequited conclusion that appointment of respondent No,3, against the post of. Law Officer Grade-7 was made in a most clandestine manner and in a totally mysterious way, which cannot be allowed to go unchecked. Admittedly respondent No,3 at the time of interview and appointment was not having any experience either as Law Officer or as an advocate; therefore, her appointment seems to be result of undue influence, colourable exercise of authority, evil of favouritism and besides the mandate of Constitution, Rule of Law, Principles of natural justice, equality, fair play and dictums laid down by the Superior Courts of the Country.
' In this view of the matter, the Secretary of respondent No,1 is directed to hold an inquiry about the appointments made in the Legal Department of OPF (respondent N.2) and persons involved in extending the undue favour and ignoring of the required qualification, in order to accommodate their favourites, may be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. It may also be ensured that post of Law Officer Grade-7 is properly advertised and process of appointment is fully transparent and to promote merit alone. The Secretary (respondent No,1) is directed to do the needful, within one month of the receipt of order and submit compliance report to the Registrar of this Court.
' Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.