' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners applied to the District Livestock Officer, Jhang for different posts in response to advertisement and were offered posts vide Order No,4276-88/DLO/JNG dated 24-5-2010 which were cancelled unilaterally prompting the petitioners to approach the Provincial Ombudsman Punjab for redressal of their grievance, who on 23-7-2010 accepted the representation and directed the appointing authority to issue appointment letter within 15 days from the date of receipt of order. When the same remained unattended, the. Petitioners approached this Court for a direction to respondents Nos.3 to 5 to implement the order of respondent No,6.
2. On 18-4-2012 respondent No,3 was directed to file report and parawise comments to this petition which was submitted by him. The stance taken by respondent No,3 in the report and parawise comments is that the respondent-department filed an appeal before the Governor Punjab against the decision of the Provincial Ombudsman which is pending; that only an offer for appointment was made; that number of complaints were received as large number of people remained unaware regarding the advertisement for the posts and the department is going to re-advertise the posts. Lastly, it was reiterated that the petitioners should wait for the decision of the appeal filed by the department before the Governor Punjab.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that all the objections raised by the department by way of parawise comments have been duly dealt with by the office of Provincial Ombudsman constituted for the purpose and answered in favour of the petitioners. The respondent-department is duty bound to comply with the order and issue the appointment order. Further submits that filing of appeal is no ground to hesitate for its compliance and in case of decision in favour of the respondent department in appeal, the respondent-department has every right to expel the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners during the pendency of appeal. Further submits that the petitioners would suffer no loss in case of non-issuance of appointment letter rather the department has to follow certain coddle formalities in order to expel them in case the appeal of department succeeds. She lastly submits that the Provincial Ombudsman while deciding the representation of the petitioners wrongly assumed the offer letters as appointment letters and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Law Officer and perused the record annexed with the petition minutely.
6. The crux of the matter is that a right has been accrued in favour of the petitioners when the office of the Provincial Ombudsman issued direction to the department for issuance of appointment letters in favour of the petitioners. The department in its parawise comments conceded that the offer letter for appointment was issued on merit. The argument of the learned Law Officer that the petitioners should wait for the decision of appeal of the department has no weight as the order passed needs to be complied with unless its implementation is stayed or set- aside by the appellate authority. The last argument of the learned Law Officer that the office of respondent No,6, while deciding representation of the petitioners, misconstrued the offer letters as orders is not open to this Court as this Court is not exercising its jurisdiction as an appellate court.
The respondents Nos.3 to 5, public functionaries are under statutory duty to obey the order passed by the office of Provincial Ombudsman in letter and spirit.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and respondents Nos.3 to 5 are directed to comply with the order of respondent No,6 within a week from the receipt of judgment of this Court.