' SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged order dated 1-1-2013 passed by the District Coordination Officer, Sialkot (respondent No,1) and has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter in her favour.
2. Tersely, the facts, forming background of instant petition, are that the petitioner applied for the post of Secondary School Educator (Science). As per initial merit list she stood at Serial No,8 but 6 candidates were selected against vacant posts. During scrutiny documents of one candidate were found bogus whereas another candidate namely Miss Sadia Malik (at serial No,2) did not join her duties, resultantly, name of the petitioner came up from Serial Nos.8 to 6 in the merit list. As the respondents did not offer appointment to the petitioner, as per Recruitment Policy, 2011, issued by the Government of Punjab, School Education Department, she filed a petition (W.P. No,23591 of 2012) before this Court which was disposed of on 24-9-2012 with a direction to respondent No,1 to decide representation of the petitioner who vide impugned order dated 1-1-2013, dismissed representation of the petitioner; hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to droppage/non-joining of two selectees, the petitioner, being next in the merit list, was entitled for appointment; that one post is still lying vacant at Govt. Girls High School Baddoke Cheerna Tehsil Sambrial District Sialkot and the petitioner can be accommodated against the same; that the petitioner has been meted out with discriminatory treatment; that act of the respondents is in clear cut violation of Recruitment Policy, 2011, as well as Articles 4, 18, 25, 27 and 34 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law; that valuable rights have accrued in favour of the petitioner and if she is not offered appointment she will suffer irreparable loss.
4. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G., while referring to report and parawise comments filed on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court as she suppressed the factum of filing of his earlier writ petition; that the petitioner applied against the afore-mentioned seat in the first phase of recruitment for Educators under the Recruitment Policy, 2011, which has been completed and thereafter appointments under phase-II of the said policy have also been completed; that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed on the basis of the merit list which was only valid for 190 days; that in the event of acceptance of this petition, a flood-gate would be opened by the similar persons and it would not be possible for the respondents to cope with the situation and that the order impugned in this petition is in line with the law on the subject.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the documents annexed with this petition as well as those produced during the course of arguments.
6. Initially taking up the objection raised by the learned A.A.-G. as to whether this petition can be dismissed on account of concealment of facts by the petitioner, I do not find myself in agreement with the learned A.A.-G. on the said point firstly for the reason that in Paragraph No,7 of the instant petition the petitioner has categorically not only referred to earlier Writ Petition No,23591 of 2012 but has also mentioned in unequivocal words that the same was disposed of with a direction to respondent No,1 to decide representation of the petitioner. Secondly, the instant petition has been filed against order dated 1-1-2013 passed by respondent No,1 whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected, therefore, I do not find any fault with the foot-note given by the petitioner at the bottom of the petition. Consequently, the said objection raised by learned A.A.-G. has no substance and the same is accordingly spurned.
7. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, admittedly, the petitioner applied against the afore-referred post pursuant to the advertisement got published by the respondents under Recruitment Policy, 2011. To resolve the controversy involved in this petition a perusal of the Policy is of paramount consideration, clauses 'c' and 'd' whereof under the heading of 'LETTER OF AGREEMENT' reads as under:--- "(c) If a person fails to join the post within fifteen days or where a written refusal is received from a selectee, his/her selection shall stand cancelled and next person on the merit list will be offered the Letter of Agreement (Annex-B) subject, to provisions of paras a and b above.
(d) In case a person joins and leaves the same within a period of 190 days, then the Appointing Authority may offer the appointment to the next candidate on the merit list with the approval of Chairman District Recruitment Committee."
' A careful perusal of the afore-quoted clauses of the Policy makes it crystal clear that it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to offer appointment to a person next in the merit list when the persons on the higher merit list either refused to join the service or relinquish the job after joining the same. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, lethargic attitude of respondent No,3 is manifest from the fact that not only he acted in violation of the terms of the Policy by not offering appointment to the petitioner but also did not act even on the application filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period. Public authorities cannot be allowed to play havoc with the fate of the masses especially B with those who have exceptional academic record and have the ability to serve the nation in a better way.
8. Now adverting to the objection raised by the respondents that since 190 days have expired, therefore, the merit list is no more in the field and the petitioner cannot claim her appointment on the basis thereof. I am of the view that no individual, who otherwise has a vested right, can be thrown at the mercy of the persons who are at helm of the affairs like respondent No,3. Instead of acknowledging his inefficiency, the respondent No,3, present before the Court, is adamant that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed in this petition. Conduct of respondent No,3 otherwise invites serious objection as after admitting the claim of the petitioner in his report and parawise comments he had no cheeks to deprive her from appointment against the post. There is nothing on the record to show that he ever processed case of the petitioner to the Chairman of the District Recruitment Committee for appointment in terms of afore-quoted clauses 'c' and 'd' of the Recruitment Policy, 2011. It is well-established by now that the discretion vested with the public authorities should be exercised with C reasonableness and nobody can be left unbridled to tinker with the future of the citizens.
9. As far as the plea of the respondents that process of recruitment under Phase-I of the Recruitment Policy, 2011, having been over, the petitioner cannot be accommodated, is concerned, I am constrained to observe that the way of the justice cannot be allowed to be impeded on the basis of technicalities rather the same should allow to take its duel course even the heavens may fall. Reliance in this regard is placed on the ID case reported as Federation of Pakistan and others v.
Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 166).
10. Now reverting to the respondents' plea that in case of grant of relief to the petitioner, endless litigation would start by the masses, is concerned, I am of the view that this Court has to ensure the constitutional guarantees of the citizens of the country provided under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and has least concern about the consequences in case a deserving person is given his right. In this state of affairs, the objection of the respondents seems to be somewhat speculative.
11. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 1-1-2013 passed by respondent No,1 is set aside. Consequently, respondent No,3 is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner after approval by respondent No,1, Chairman of the District Recruitment Committee, within 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
No order as to cost.
12. Before parting with the order it is observed that the conduct of the Executive District Officer (Education), Sialkot, (respondent No,3) invites serious objections. Consequently, Office is directed to transmit a copy of this petition to the Secretary Education (Schools), Government of the Punjab, Lahore, to conduct an inquiry against the then Executive District Officer (Education), Sialkot, and proceed against him in accordance with the relevant provisions of law under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).