' SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has sought a direction to respondents for her appointment.
2. Pithily, the facts, as encompassed in the instant petition, are that petitioner's father, namely, Rasool Bakhsh had been serving as Arabic Teacher in Government Boys Secondary School Unran Tehsil Liaqatpur District Rahim Yar Khan and during his service, he breathed his last on 19-6-2011.
On the demise of her father, the petitioner submitted an application before District Education Officer Rahim Yar Khan (respondent No,4) for her appointment in terms of Rule 17-A of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 whereupon the respondent No,4 referred the matter to the Executive District Officer Rahim Yar Khan (respondent No,3) who in turn sent back the same to respondent No,4 to look into the request of the petitioner at his own level. As no step has been taken by respondent No,3 towards appointment of the petitioner, she has instituted the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to Rule 17-A ibid, one of the child of a government servant, who dies during service irrespective of the fact whether he/she is married or not is entitled for appointment; that the respondents are lingering on the matter of appointment of the petitioner on flimsy grounds; that it is a classical example of red tapism on the part of the departmental authorities and that the petitioner is wandering here and there for redressal of her grievance but without any success. In addition to his oral submissions, learned counsel has also relied upon the case reported as Mst. Ubaida Manzoor v. Government of the Punjab and 4 others (2012 PLC (S.C.) 101).
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General, while referring to the report and parawise comments, states that according to clarification issued by the Services and General Administration Department through Notification No,SOR-III(S&GAD)2-32/2004(P), dated 13-9-2004, a married son of the deceased government servant has been held entitled for appointment under Rule 17-A ibid but the same being silent about the status of married daughter, the petitioner's case has not been finalized so far; that though the matter was referred back to respondent No,4 by respondent No,3 but it is nowhere mentioned that appointment letter was to be issued in favor of the petitioner; that respondent No,4 is bound to follow the policies of the government framed from time to time and that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted being premature as the request of the petitioner before departmental authorities has not been finalized.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General and going through the documents annexed with this petition in addition to the relevant provisions of law, I am of the view that for resolution of the controversy between the parties perusal of Rule 17- A ibid is much conducive which for facility of reference is being reproduced herein below:--- "17-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule to the contrary, whenever a Civil Servant dies while in service or is declared invalidated/ incapacitated for further service, any one of his unemployed children, may be employed by the Appointing Authority against a post to be filled under rules 16 and 17 for which he/she possesses the prescribed qualifications and experience and such child may be given 10 additional marks in the aggregate by the Public Service Commission or by the appropriate Selection Board or Committee, provided he/she otherwise qualifies in the test/examination and/or interview for posts in BS-6 and above: ' Provided further that one child of a Government servant who dies while in service or is declared invalidated/incapacitated for further service shall be provided a job against posts in BS-1 to 5 in the department in which the deceased Government servant was working, without observance of formalities prescribed under the rules/procedure. Provided such child is otherwise eligible for the post." (emphasis provided)
' A perusal of the afore-quoted Rule shows that to avail the benefit of the same the person concerned is only to show that he/she is from the progeny of the deceased civil servant and no line of distinction has been drawn between the married and unmarried children. The said preposition came under discussion before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mst. Ubaid Mansoor (supra) whereby while clinching the issue, under discussion, it has inter alia been observed as follows:-
5. Under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the benefit is to be extended to a child of a civil servant, who dies during service or is rendered invalidated/incapacitated during service. No distinction is made in the said Rule between a son and a daughter. Again, there is no distinction between the married or unmarried son/daughter the clear and unambiguous object of this provision is to give relief to the bereaved family, who has been deprived of the bread earner. Discrimination on the basis of sex is violative to the fundamental right of equality of citizens as bestowed under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Even otherwise the narrower interpretation depriving a married daughter of such civil servant of the benefit given under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid does not appeal to the rational mind as there may be an eventuality when the deceased leaves behind one married daughter and remaining minor children. If the daughter is not given the benefit then the family may not get any relief which would be against the spirit of this benevolent provision of law, which appears to have been made for welfare of the bereaved families of the civil servants.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,5 that Mst. Ubaida Manzoor is dependent on her husband so she is not entitled to the benefit under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, is without force because it is a matter of common knowledge that the daughters are more considerate towards their brothers and sisters after demise of either of the parents. Except the judgment passed at the Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, the constant view of this Court at different Benches had been that the married daughter of deceased or invalidated/incapacitated civil servant is entitled to the benefit under Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid. In this respect, the judgments reported as Nazia Naeem Executive District Officer (Education), Bahawalpur and another (KLR 2009 L&S Cases 153) and Miss Iffat Tahirah v. Secretary Schools and others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 1404) are referred to in addition to the judgment passed in W.P. No,4322 of 2010. This wider interpretation appears to in consonance with the object of the said Rule and conformity with the intent of Law Makers.
7. Learned A.A.-G. Has stated that the Government of the Punjab vide Notification No,SOR- III(S&GAD)2-10/2007-P dated 6-7-2010 has already clarified that the benefit under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, is admissible to the child irrespective of the marital status. This notification supersedes the impugned notification and reflects the true spirit of Rule 17-A of the Rules ibid. "(emphasis provided)
' A perusal of the afore-quoted paras of the judgment shows that the notification, dated 13-9-2004, being relied upon by respondent No,4 in his report and parawise comments stood superseded by virtue of subsequent Notification No,SOR-III (S&GAD)2-10/2007-P dated 6-7-2010 whereby it has been clarified that appointment of a child of government servant who dies during service or retires on the basis of medical grounds is eligible for appointment irrespective of his/her marital status.
The said fact speaks volume about the mala fide on the part of respondent No,4 to delay the appointment of the petitioner.
6. Insofar as the plea adopted by learned Assistant Advocate-General that as the request of the petitioner has not been turned down so far, the instant petition is premature, I am constrained to hold that while giving brief history in his report and parawise comments, respondent No,4 has inter alia averred as under:--- "Hence, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment under rule 17-A having married daughter of the deceased and request of the petitioner is not entertainable".
' The above portion of report and parawise comments is sufficient to establish that for all practical purposes the request of the petitioner has been turned down by respondent No,4. Thus, the plea raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General is baseless.
7. There is no cavil with the preposition that departmental authorities are bound to implement the policies/decisions taken by the government from time to time but at the same time, the said power cannot be used to substitute language of a Statue. As far as the case in hand is concerned, prima facie respondent No,4 has tried to introduce interpretation of Rule 17-A ibid of his own choice. Such unbridled exercise of powers by respondent No,4 and that too in contravention to the clear cut provision of a Staute cannot be approved rather deserves to be deprecated.
8. It is important to mention over here that while submitting report and parawise comments, respondent No,4 has put much emphasis on the notification dated 13-9-2004 but his ignorance about issuance of subsequent notification dated 6-7-2010 and judgment of this court in the case of Mst. Obaida Mansoor (supra) speaks volumes about his inefficiency to hold an administrative post.
9. As a net result of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, I have no hesitation in my mind to hold that one child of a government servant who dies during service or retires on medical grounds is entitled for appointment under Rule 17-A ibid. Consequently, the petition in hand is accepted and respondent No,4 is directed to issue appointment letter in favor of the petitioner forthwith. There shall be no order as to cost.
10. Before parting with this order, the office is directed to immediately transmit a copy of this order to Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department Lahore (respondent No,1) who shall look into the conduct of respondent No,4 in the light of observations made hereinabove and in case any omission or commission is established on the part of respondent No,4, he shall be taken to task while initiating departmental proceedings against him. The outcome of the said probe shall be conveyed to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench.