Waqar Ahmad Seth, J.--This single 'judgment shall also dispose of connected writ petition Bearing No, 2568-P of 2015, as similar question of law are involved therein.
2. Abdul Wajid, petitioner herein, has filed the instant writ petition with the prayer to direct the respondents to issue his appointment order/letter as Assistant Chief/District Planning Officer, being recommendee and to restrain them from adverse action which affects his vested rights.
3. Relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that, the vide advertisement No, 01/2012 dated 28.02.2012, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Public Service Commission, advertised certain posts including the post of Assistant Chief/District Planning Officer, BS-18 on the requisition of Planning and Development Department, to which petitioner being eligible and competent applied and after codal formalities appeared in the examination test and qualified the test, so conducted. After qualifying the screening test, petitioner waiting for interview which was to be held on 28f29/08/2013, as was supposed on Commission Website, but through letter dated August, 21st 2013, Respondent No, 3, requested the Commission to withdraw the said post due to abolishment on account of 'promulgation of Local Government Act, 2012. It is averred that another candidate aggrieved from the same had filed Writ Petition No, 3116-P of 2013 before this Court which was disposed of with the direction to the Commission to call for the petitioner and other eligible candidates for interview and complete the process in accordance with law which was done accordingly and petitioner along with other were recommended for appointment through letter dated 16.9.2014. It is further averred that despite recommendation followed by applications/appeal for appointment, respondents have not yet issued the appointment order, on one and other pretext; hence, having no other efficacious and alternate remedy petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
4. Comments were called from respondents which they furnished accordingly, denied the assertion of petitioner and stated that correct, two posts of Assistant Chief/District Planning Officer BS-18 were advertised at the time of announcement of two posts of Assistant chief/District Planning Officer BS-18, the P&D Department was having the following tuber of posts of Assist it ant Chief/District Planning Officer BS-18 with 40% for transfer, 40% for promotion and 20% initial recruitment. That 'after the. Promulgation of LGA, 2012 the District setup of P&D Department was merged in the Board of Revenue and Estate Department which resulted into the deletion of 16 posts of Assistant Chief/District Planning Officer, BS-18 on 01.01.2013. P&D Department took up the case with Establishment & Finance Departments for re-creation of the same which was not entertained.
On rejection of SNE the P&D Department requested the Establishment Department for view and advice in the matter. The Establishment Department after examining the case directly approached to the Public Service Commission for withdrawal, as the recruitment process was in final stage, keeping in view the time constraint duly highlighted by P&D Department. That another candidate filed writ petition in this Court through the same advocate, wherein the advocate concerned deceived the Hon'ble Court that time by giving false facts and figures. The advocate concerned at that time showed that schedule-II posts of District Officer (F&P) which are specified for appointment, posting and transfer of DMGs, APLTGs, PCS and PMS Officers, as Assistant Chief/ District Planning Officer (Ex-cadre) posts of P&D Department. Further that no Ex-cadre post of 'assistant Chief/District Planning Officer does not exist anymore in the Budget of the Provincial Government, keeping in view the foregoing, the provincial government filed CPLA against the decision of this Court. Despite signing the NOC for filling CPLA and written request Respondents No, 5 & 6 conducted the proceedings and the interview so conducted by them does not have any legal standing, as it was held without the presence of the departmental representative of P&D as well as Establishment Department. The P&D Department does not own recommendations of the Respondents No, 5 & 6 on the following grounds:
(i) As there was no participation by the representative of the P&D and Establishment Department in the said interview, which was mandatory as per rules.
(ii) As per the various decisions of the superior Courts of the country, the recommendations of the Public Service cdmmission are not binding on the department/government, requested for rejection of the writ petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondents and perused the available record.
6. Record suggests that this Court while allowing Writ Petition No, 3116-P of 2013 vide judgment dated 11.4.2014 held that the two posts of Assistant Chief/District Planning Officer, were never abolished and they still exists and the request for withdrawal/abolition of said two posts in BS-18 are not backed by any reasons, justification and the correspondence made by the respondents were declared null and void and as such the respondents were directed to issue call letters to all eligible candidates for the purpose of interview and completion of process of appointment in accordance with law. Record further suggest that thereafter process was completed and petitioner as well as one Mrs. Ayesha Ihsan were recommended for said posts i,e, Assistant Chief/District Planning Officer BS-18, but subsequently the said Mrs. Ayesha Ihsan d/o Ali Asghar was recommended for the reserve post of BS-19, which she accepted and joined.
7. The petitioner in connected Writ Petition No, 2568-P of 2015, titled Hamid Naveed us Govt., is on waiting list i.e 3rd on merit behind the said Mrs. Ayesha and Abdul Wajid and by joining the post of BS-19 Mrs. Ayesha Ihsan, petitioner in the connected writ petition has been elevated to second position on merit and in view of judgment in Civil Petition No, 1697 of 2010 dated 5.10.2010, the Hon'ble apex Court while modifying a bit the case of Musa Wazir by allowing the appointment/recommendation on account of non joinder of selectees up to the commencement of the training of the appointees, provided that the process does not in any way effect the right of any other candidate or appointee, said Hamid Naveed is also deserves recommendations and appointment. Learned AAG assisted by the representative of Public Service Commission and the department stated at the bar that petitioner in connected writ petition namely Hamid Naveed is now on second position against the two advertised posts of Assistant chief/District Planning Officer, and the recommendations and notification of the Government is still awaited.
8. In view of the above situation specially when there is no objection on behalf of Government, we allow both the writ petitions and direct the Public Service Commission to issue the recommendations for the two posts Assistant Chief/District Planning Officer, in BS-18 immediately and the Government/respondents shall notify their appointment within fifteen days thereafter.
9. Writ petition is allowed in above terms.