' ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J. --- This single order shall dispose of instant Constitutional petition and W.P. No, 833 of 2015 being connected and identical matters.
2. Through these petitions the petitioners have assailed the appointments of private respondents on different grounds mentioned therein.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 1/Medical Superintendent, Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur invited applications for recruitment of 10-posts of Pharmacists (BS-17). The petitioners alongwith others applied for the said post and after short listing and interview private respondents 15 in number were selected agains said post.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No, 928 of 2015-BWP contends that only ten posts were advertised by respondent No,1 but after interview 15 persons were appointed without observing the formalities and without advertisement of 5 posts; that merit list of the candidates was not displayed; that no quota of any kind was observed and that the said recruitment was made against the Recruitment Policy introduced by Government of the Punjab.
5. More or less same was the grievance voiced by Muhammad Rashid, petitioner through Writ Petition No, 833 of 2015 whereby he claimed that he was already working as Internee on honorary basis with the respondent-department but instead of regularizing him the private respondents had been illegally appointed against the law.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents contends that the petitioners have levelled general allegations. Total 548 candidates applied for the post of Pharmacist (BS-17) and after short listing the candidates were called for interview; that the recruitment policy introduced by Government of Punjab was followed by respondent No, 1 in letter and spirit; that interview process was completed from 05.01.2015 to 13.01.2015 and merit list was properly prepared and displaced on the notice board; that under the law interview marks cannot be challenged in constitutional petition being factual matter; that actually ten seats were advertised but due to acute shortage of Pharmacists in the hospital, the Chief Pharmacist vide letter dated 31.10.2014 requested respondent No, 1/ Medical Superintendent for sanction of five more posts on the ground that since the clinical Pharmacists are essential part of Public Health Care Team, so, ten Pharmacists are insufficient for the hospital.
On this through Agenda Item No, 6, respondent No, 1 made request for sanction of five more posts of Pharmacists to the competent authority. The Chairman, Board of Management provisionally approved the sanction of five more seats of Pharmacist subject to final approval by the Board of Management vide order dated 22.01.2015; that merit list was not by-passed and the competent authority issued appointment letters to top fifteen candidates in the merit list who are working against their respective posts. Further contends that power of creation of posts has already been delegated to Chairman by the Board of Management in its 21st meeting held on 29.11.2008. Further maintains that subsequently Board of Management during its 8th meeting held on 06.02.2015 vide Agenda Item No, 6 regarding sanction of five more posts of Pharmacist, approved the recommendations made by the Chairman. Maintains that all the process was conducted with bona fide intention only to save time and expenses of the hospital and keeping in view the dire needs of Pharmacists in hospital. Further contends that the private respondents after their selection joined the service and since January, 2015 are working at their posts to the entire satisfaction of their superiors. If any irregularity has been committed by the department, the selected candidates cannot be penalized for that; that certain rights have been accrued to private respondents after their appointment. Relied on cases reported as "Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and others v. Aamir Junaid andt others" (2015 SCMR 74), "Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (2015 CLC 577), "Saima v. Government of Balochistan through its Secretary Education Department, Quetta, etc." (2014 TD (Service) 317), "Bashir Ahmed Solangi v. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others" (2007 PLC (C.S.) 824), "Muhammad Zahid lqbal and others v. D.E.O., Mardan and others" (2006 SCMR 285), "Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Punjab .And others" (2006 SCMR 678), "Abdul Razzaq v. Secretary Government of Pakistan and others" (2004 PLC (C.S.) 653).
7. Arguments heard and record perused.
8. It is not case of the petitioners that the successful candidates were not eligible for appointment; that any one of them was junior in merit list; that their appointment was tainted with mala fide or that the same was based on nepotism or favourtism. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent department had advertised 10 posts of Pharmacists through the national newspaper but in clear violation of the advertisement have appointed 15 candidates which is against the Rules and Recruitment Policy. The department did not deny the fact that 10 posts of Pharmacists were advertised, however, it was its stand that process for recruitment was carried out but during said process acute shortage of Pharmacists in the hospital was felt being essential part of public health care team and to meet with this emergent situation fifteen top list candidates were appointed after fulfilling all formalities. I have carefully perused the process of recruitment right from advertisement till the appointment and observed that 548 candidates responded to the advertisement by applying for the post of Pharmacists. The available record shows that after short-listing interviews of 429 candidates were conducted and merit list by including interview marks was prepared. The record further depicts that top 15 candidates of the merit list were appointed. I have also noticed that names of petitioners in Writ Petition No, 928 of 2015 fall at Serial Nos. 275, 52 and 21 of the merit list whereas name of Muhammad Rashid, petitioner in Writ Petition N. . 833 of 2015 fall at Serial No, 327 of the merit list.
9. Although there is no denial to the settled principle of law that it would be improper exercise of power to make appointments over and above those advertised posts. I am aware of the celebrated principle annunciated in the case titled Muhammad Ali v. Province of KPK through Secretary (2005 SCMR 955) that the law does not recognize the appointments made without advertisement, but in the present case situation is a bit different. Initially 10 posts of Pharmacists were advertised vide advertisement in the 'Daily Khabrain' dated 16.11.2014. It may be mentioned that it is available on record that much before said advertisement the Chief Pharmacist felt acute shortage of pharmacists as such vide letter dated 31.10.2014 he requested respondent No, 1/Medical Superintendent for sanction of five more posts on the ground that since the clinical Pharmacists are essential part of Public Health Care Team, so, ten Pharmacists are insufficient for the hospital.
This request of the Chief Pharmacist for sanction of five more posts of Pharmacists was forwarded, by respondent No, 1 to the competent authority in due course. However, by that time applications had been invited and process for appointments against 10 advertised posts of Pharmacists had been started. During that process the Chairman, Board of Management while exercising power of creation of posts delegated to him by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 29.11.2008 provisionally approved the sanction of five more seats of Pharmacists subject to final approval by the Board of Management vide order dated 22.01.2015. Subsequently Board of Management during its meeting held on 06.02.2015 approved the recommendations made by the Chairman regarding sanction of five more posts of Pharmacist. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent appears to be weighty that the process was conducted with bona fide intention only to save time and expenses of the hospital and keeping in view the dire needs of Pharmacists in hospital. I have noticed that the appointments have been made on ad hoc basis meaning thereby that the respondents have been appointed till the appointment of Pharmacists on permanent basis, therefore, at this stage I do not think that I should interfere in the matter in absence of any valid ground to invalidate the impugned order especially when it is not claim of any of the petitioner that they were senior in the merit list. The candidates including the applicants and the private respondents have competed and a merit list on the basis of scrutiny after interviews was prepared and the respondents were appointed. If the explanation of the department is tested on the touchstone of reasonableness on the basis of emergent situation and appears to be justified then in my view if the posts had been enhanced during process for appointment and much more candidates than the total of enhanced seats then stance of the department appears to be justified that the same was only to save government expenses and also to save time. If the department has filled up the vacancies on the basis of exigencies of service to meet with emergent situation, they should not be restrained from doing so at the cost of health of public. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on the case of AmIan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and others (2009 AIR (SCW) 2017).
10. There is also another aspect of the matter. It is not case of the petitioners that successful candidates were not eligible for appointment or that any one of them was junior in merit list or their appointment was tainted with mala fide or based on nepotism or favouritism. It is also not their case that any pick and choose was made from the candidates. This being so, there seems to be no fault on the part of respondents No, 6 to 20 who have undergone due process of recruitment and thereafter have been selected for appointment and as such right has accrued in their favour.
11. The pith and substance of the entire discussion supra is that I do not find any merit in these petitions calling for interference in the recruitment process, consequently, the same are dismissed. 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.