Briefly the facts of the case are that after completion of requisite process the Punjab Public Service Commission recommended the petitioner for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor of Mathematics (BS-18) on regular basis in the Punjab Higher Education Department. The said department issued offer of appointment letter dated 1st of February, 2011 and the petitioner accepted said offer. In continuation to the offer of appointment letter, another letter was issued to the petitioner calling for her priority- wise option for posting station and in response to this letter the petitioner also wrote application to the Secretary Higher Education for up-gradation of her existing post or for her posting in nearby college, as according to the stance of the petitioner her other colleagues had been adjusted after up-gradation of their posts. Thereafter, the petitioner continued approaching the department for her posting, but without any positive response and lastly she was refused posting on.The ground that process of appointment could not be completed within 190 days from the date of issuance of recommendations by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Hence, this writ petition.
2. The contention of learned counsel is that after going through lawful process of selection, the Punjab Public Service Commission recommended for appointment of the petitioner and vide letter dated let February, 2011 she was offered appointment, which was accepted by her, however, as the petitioner was desirous about her posting at Faisalabad instead of Sargodha, therefore, she through written correspondence remained in touch with the authorities. Further argued that delay in decision of her applications is because of the departmental hierarchy itself. Lastly, argued that after the petitioner had accepted the offer of appointment, her posting at certain place was an independent issue and thus no ouster clause could apply against her.
3. The learned Law Officer submits that the process of appointment could not be completed within prescribed period in the rules, hence, now the recommendations of Punjab Public Service Commission cannot be implemented.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
5. The question to be resolved through the instant writ petition is whether the offer of appointment and its acceptance by the candidate would complete the process of appointment or it includes posting of the candidate also? The main stance of learned counsel for the respondents is based on Rules 21.A(4,5) of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 and Para-69 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2000. For ready reference the above relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:-- RULE 21.A(4) and (6) of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1974.
"21.A (1) ....................
(2) ................
(3) ...................
(4) The appointing authority shall complete the process of appointment within one hundred and ninety days from the date of issue of recommendations by the Punjab Public Service Commission and no request for extension in the joining time as specified in the offer of appointment shall be entertained.
(5) If a person to whom offer of appointment has been issued fails to join his post within the period specified in the said offer of appointment, his selection shall automatically stand cancelled."
PARA-69 of Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 000: "The merit list remains valid for one year from the date of issuance of recommendations or till the next closing date for submission of applications for similar post, which ever is earlier."
The agreement between the parties becomes final when an offer is made and same is accepted by the other party. In this case the petitioner was recommended by Punjab Public Service Commission for appointment in Higher Education Department as Assistant Professor (BS-18) and this offer was only to the extent of appointment in Higher Education Department and it was the department which had to adjust/post the petitioner anywhere in the institutions run and controlled by Higher Education Department, if after issuance of offer of appointment letter by the authority, the same is accepted by the candidate. The process of appointment concluded by acceptance of offer of appointment letter by the petitioner and her posting was altogether a second stage left for the Higher Education Department. As in this case admittedly the department issued offer of appointment letter which was accepted by the petitioner and after its acceptance, another letter was issued to receive priority-wise option for posting from the petitioner. Even the application submitted by the petitioner to Secretary Higher Education Department for upgradation of her existing post or her posting in a nearby College also establish that petitioner had accepted the offer of appointment. Thus, when the offer of appointment was duly accepted by the petitioner then the bar of 190-days provided by Rule 21-A(4) and (5) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 would not apply and the candidate could be posted anytime and anywhere even after expiry of more than 190 days.
6. Rule 21.A(5) of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 further clarifies the position, where it is mentioned that if a person to whom offer of appointment has been issued fails to join within the period specified in the said offer of appointment, his selection shall automatically stand cancelled. Para-2 of the letter about offer of appointment is reproduced hereunder:-- "If you accept the above Terms and Conditions of the appointment, you may submit your acceptance to the offer of appointment within fifteen days and return this following portion to this Department."
Meaning thereby, the appointment was qualified by the only condition that candidate had to submit acceptance to the offer of appointment within fifteen days, and as the petitioner accepted said offer within the requisite time, which fact is not denied by the respondent department. Bare perusal of Rule 21.A(4,5), ibid, clarify that only the process of appointment has to be completed within 190 days, which process has been completed in this case and posting order could be issued even after 190-days.
7. For what has been discussed above, the stance taken by the respondent is held to be nullity in the eyes of law, as in the peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case Rule 21.A(4) and (5) of Rules, 1974 and Para-69 of Regulations, 2000 do not attract. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and respondent/authorities are directed to issue formal posting orders to the petitioner, in accordance with law. It is however, made clear that although seniority would reckon from the date of acceptance of offer of appointment but the petitioner will be eligible for salary from the date when she will join her place of posting to perform her duties, as the employee is entitled for salary for the work done.