' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner prays as under:--- "(i) An appropriate writ may graciously be issued.
(ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to issue appointment letter as Deputy Prosecutor General (BS-18) to the petitioner w,e,f, the date when the petitioner's other colleagues were appointed as on 20-4-2010.
(iii) Writ petition may very kindly be allowed with all consequential benefits.
(iv) Any other relief, which this honourable Court may deem just and proper in the peculiar circumstances of the case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. Facts of case in brief are that the Punjab Public Service Commission vide advertisement dated 11- 1-2010 published in the public newspaper invited applications for the post of Deputy Prosecutor General (B5-18). Pursuant to that advertisement the petitioner applied for the said post and after going through different parlays the petitioner stood at Sr.No,3 of the merit list. On the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission the respondent issued the petitioner an offer of appointment as Deputy Prosecutor General vide letter dated 11-3-2010. The petitioner accepted the said offer but the respondents did not issue him an appointment letter despite petitioner's repeated requests. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondents of not issuing the petitioner an appointment letter is illegal, mala fide and with ulterior motives; that after accepting the offer of the respondents valuable rights have been accrued in favour of the petitioner which cannot be rescinded or recalled on the principle of "Locus Poententiae"; that on the basis of an inquiry, penalty of removal from service has been imposed on the petitioner but according to specific provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1999 it does not disentitle the petitioner from future service; that moreover against the removal of the petitioner an appeal was filed before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and vide judgment dated 26-7-2011 imposition of penalty of removal from service has been converted into withholding of one increment for one year; that it, is settled principle of law that if the basis of the penalty are washed away than insistence to withhold the appointment letter is not justified.
4. Conversely, learned Law Officer submits that the offer of appointment was issued to the petitioner on the basis of being a PCS Officer and he was required to get himself relieved as a PCS Officer but the concerned department has not relieved the petitioner for the reason that he has been removed from service as an outcome of an inquiry on the charges of misconduct and corruption; that the petitioner has thus ceased to be a member of prescribed Civil Service and become ineligible for the said post; that the petitioner did not apply for the post of Deputy Prosecutor General (hereinafter referred to as D.P.G.) with permission of the competent authority as envisaged under Rule 3 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Applications for Posts) Rules, 1987; that a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No,1173/08 registered under sections 420/468/469/471, P.P.C. Has also been registered against the petitioner as such he is not a suitable candidate for the post of D.P.G.
4-A. In rebuttal learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of D.P.G. Through proper channel; that the petitioner sought permission for the said job from the competent authority through application dated 23-1-2010 and a reminder in this respect has also been submitted but without response; that according to Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Application for Posts) Rules, 1987 the permission was deemed to have been granted; that so far as registration of criminal case is concerned the same is based on mala fide and this fact is apparent from the record as the petitioner is a civil servant and under the law cannot be tried by the Ilia Magistrate rather has to be tried by the Special Judge but in the criminal case the concerned Ilia Magistrate is proceeding with the matter. Furthermore, the said criminal case has yet not been proved against the petitioner and it is settled law that mere pendency of a criminal case does not imply an accused as guilty of offence unless proven; that on the basis of pendency of said criminal case the respondents are not justified to withhold the appointment order of the petitioner.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The offer of appointment dated 11-3-2010 was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. Condition No, ix of the said offer of appointment is reproduced as under:---
(ix) The appointment is subject to verification of your degrees/ Certificates of academic qualification/any other particular/ document or information submitted by the candidate and if these are subsequently found to be bogus/forged/incorrect etc. The appointment will be withdrawn and the salaries drawn shall be redeposit."
7. Admittedly, neither the petitioner disclosed factum of pendency of inquiry or criminal case registered against him nor he filed application with the permission of the Appointing Authority as envisaged under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Application for Posts) Rules, 1957. If the petitioner adopted proper course for filing of application then the pendency of inquiry and registration of criminal case must have been in the notice of the competent authority before issuance of offer of appointment. The petitioner deliberately avoided to disclose this fact as such when on verification it came to the notice of the competent authority that not only the petitioner has been removed from service vide order dated 26-2-2010 but also he is an accused of criminal case bearing F.I.R. No,1173/08, under sections 420/468/471/469, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Islampura. When these facts came to the notice of the competent authority, it while invoking condition No, ix reproduced supra withheld the appointment order of the petitioner.
8. Furthermore, it is settled law that mere offer of appointment does not create any vested right in favour of a candidate. In case reported as Asdullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others (2005 PLC (C.S.).771) it has been laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court as under:- "A bare perusal of the above mentioned letter would indicate that it is an offer simplicitor as is indicative from the subject of the fetter i,e, Offer For Employment of P.I.A.C. The above mentioned "Offer" cannot be equated to that of "appointment". The letter reflects that the appellants were advised to report the Manager Employment P.I.A.C. For further action. In our view, the procedural formalities were completed by the above mentioned letter and it has got no concern with actual appointment."
' In para No,9 of the said judgment their lordships observed as follows:--- "There is no cavil with the proposition that "the right which is the foundation of an application under Article 199 is a personal and individual right. The legal right may be a statutory right or a right recognized by the law. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to perform relating to. The right. There must not only be a right but a justiciable right in existence, to give jurisdiction to the High Court in the matter. Unless whatever right, personal or otherwise, on which the applicable is based is established, no order can be issued under Article 199."
9. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty, of removal from service of the petitioner was set-aside by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal vide order dated 26- 7-2011 is concerned, perusal of the said order shows that the learned Tribunal did not exonerate the petitioner in all the charges levelled against him by the departmental authorities. Rather converted his major penalty of removal from service into withholding of one increment for one year meaning.
C thereby some of the charges stood proved against the petitioner. The petitioner is also a nominated accused of F.I.R. No,1173/08, under sections 420/468/471/469, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Islampura. If the respondent department is not willing to appoint a person in its department who has adverse entries in his previous service record and accused of criminal case then this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot compel it to do so: 10 Moreover, it is settled law that the authority that has a power to make an order also has the power to undo it. In case reported in PLD 1992 SC .207 (The Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Jalaluddin) the Hon'ble apex Court has held that under section 21 of the General clauses Act,, the authority which can pass 'an order is entitled to vary, amend, add to or to rescind that order.
11. Besides it is now well settled that Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is discretionary in nature and cannot be exercised to perpetuate any ill-gotten gains as it has been held in PLD 1973 SC 230 (Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others).
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner has failed to establish his vested right viz-a-viz the post of Deputy Prosecutor-General, therefore, no question of its infringement arises warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this petition has no force and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.