Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J.-- The titled appeal by leave of the Court has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 06.04.2016, through which the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed.
2. According to the summarized facts of the case the appellant, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming therein that in the year 2010, the respondents advertised many posts including five posts of of Section Clerk B-9, however , the selection proces s was not completed. Subsequently , the respondents advertised many posts of different designations/scales including six posts of Section Clerk B-9, amongst which one post was allocated for refugees settled in Pakistan. The appellant applied for the same and after test and interview he was placed at serial No.4 of the merit list. He claimed that the respondents have withheld a number of the posts. Had all the posts been advertised he would have been appointed. He sought a direction to the respondents to appoint him against the withheld vacant post. The learned High Court, after necessary proceed ings, dismissed the writ petition through the impugned judgment, hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Sardar M. R. Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant after narration of the necessary facts submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court is based upon misconception of the facts and law. The respondents-authority evasively denied the important proposition that the posts of Selection Clerk reserved for the quota of refugees settled in Pakistan have illegally been withheld. It is also very important aspect of the matter that in the year 2010, five posts of the quota reserved for refugees settled in Pakistan were advertised but amazingly , subsequently only one person was appoi nted. This fact has not been denied by the respondents in the pleadings rather only evasive denial has been made that due to litigation before the Court the appointment against the quota could not be made, which appears to be mere a lame excuse. According to princip le of law laid down by this Court in a number of cases the implementation of the quota as fixed under rules is mandatory and violation of same amounts to violation of law. Therefore, while accepting this appeal the writ petition may be accepted and the respondents be directed to appoint the appellant against the post falling in the quota of refugees settled in Pakistan.
4. Conversely , Mr. Raza Ali Khan, Advocate- General while defending the impugn ed judgment submitted that the same is according to law. Neither any post is available nor withheld. He furthe r submitted that in the written statement, valid ground for non-availability of the posts has been mentioned, thus, this appeal has no substance and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. During arguments of the counsel for the parties, in the light of written stateme nt filed before the High Court, it was felt advised to call detailed report on behalf of the respondents. The learned Advocate-General filed the same on 07.04.2017.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record made available. According to admitted facts, the appellant falls in the category of refugees settled in Pakistan. In the year 2010, five posts of Section Clerk B-9, reserved for the quota of refugees settled in Pakistan, were advertised but due to litigation the appointments could not be made against the advertised posts. Subsequently , on 28.12.2014 only one post was advertised. The appellant approached to the High Court with the claim that in the year 2010 five posts reserved for quota of refugees settled in Pakistan were advertised but amazingly after 4 years' period the number of posts, instead of increasing has been reduced to one. It is clear violation of quota fixed under rules and speaking proof of the fact that the posts available for refugees settled in Pakistan have been withhel d and some other persons have been accommodated. In this context, the reply in paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by the respondents before the High Court is very relevant, which reads as follows:- {{URDU TEXT}} As in this case in the written statement the authority has admitted that five posts were advertised but due to litigation the appointments could not be made. In this context, the report was called which has been submitted by the Advocate-General along with the decisions of the Courts. According to the produced decisions all the writ petitions and petitions for leave to appeal remained fruitless and dismissed, thus, in the light of report and decisions produced by the respondents-authority it is clear that after dismissal of all the writ petitions the availability of the posts is proved. As due to litigation the matter has been procrastinated but now after dismissal of the writ petition and appeal it has been finalized.
7. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the report submitted by the Advocate-General the version of the appellant stands proved that five posts reserved for the quota of refugees settled in Pakistan are available.
Admittedly, the appellant was placed at serial No.4 of the merit list. The availability of the posts and withholding of same is - proved, thus, according to the principle of justice the appellant cannot be deprived for the act of any other person or due to litigation. He has succeeded in proving his version, therefore, while accepting this appeal and recalling the impugned judgment of the High Court, the respondents-authority is directed to appoint the appellant against one of the posts reserved for the quota of refugees settled in Pakistan. The order shall be complied within a period of two months from communication of this order.
This appeal stands accepted in the above terms. No order as to costs.