AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- This judgment, decides upon the issues raised in W.P. Nos, 104/2017 and 23675/2016 as both the Petitions raise common questions of law and facts.
2. The Petitioners applied for the post of Police Constable/DC Operators (BS-5). They appeared in the NTS test and appeared before the Interview Committee, and were declared successful in terms of merit list issued on 15.10.2015. The Petitioners were not issued their appointment letters, hence an application was made before the Inspector General of Police, Punjab to intervene and have the appointment letters issued in favour of the Petitioners. However the grievance of the Petitioners is that instead of appointing the Petitioners, the Respondents created a new post of Police Communications Specialist/Communication Officer and issued a new advertisement on 6.3.2016.
Subsequently they appointed candidates against that post whereas the Petitioners who were declared successful against the post of DC Operators have still not been appointed. Hence the Petitioners filed the instant petitions praying for issuance of their appointment letters against the post of DC Operators BS-5.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that since the names of the Petitioners were entered in the final merit list, hence vested right has accrued in favour of the Petitioners on the basis of which they are entitled to be appointed as DC Operators BS 5. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance onAzad Government and 4 others v. Dr. Syed Abadain Haider and 8 others(2000 PLC (CS) 9), Muhammad Saleem and 6 others v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council through Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, Islamabad and 2 others(2000 PLC (CS)
1366),Muhammad Azeem v. Executive District Officer (Health); Ghotki at MirpurMathelo and2 others(2012 PLC (CS) 915),Naveed lqbal v. Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, etc.(PLJ 2013 Lahore 12),Punjab Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) through Authorized Signatory v.
Muhammad Atif Amin and 2 others(2014 PLC (CS) 719) and Rehmat Sanober v. Balochistan Public Service Commission through Chairman and 2 others(2015 PLC (CS) 1246).
4. Report and parawise comments have been filed by Respondent No,4. In terms of the report and parawise comments filed, the matter regarding appointment of Communications Specialist no longer falls under the Police Telecommunication Wing as a new Authority that is The Punjab Safe Cities Authority ("PSCA") has been formed to develop and maintain citywide integrated command control and communications centre within the Province of Punjab. The PSCA was established to integrate quick response to emergencies within different cities of the Province of Punjab. After the establishment of the PSCA,(the earlier recruitment process of DC Operators was scraped and a fresh advertisement for recruitment of Communications Specialist was issued on 6.3.2016 in which the eligibility criteria was improved on account of the requirement of handling specialized equipment.
5. Learned Law Officer argued that initially the posts of DC Operators were advertised by Respondent No,3 but later on PSCA was established. The project was initiated to integrate quick response oemergencies within different cities of the Province of Punjab. In order to achieve .the objective and to operate the system based on equipped the latest technology "Communications Specialist" were required who could operate the equipment.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No,4 argued that the Petitioners were all informed that the seats of DC Operators have been abolished and that fresh recruitment will be undertaken. In this regard he stated that some of the applicants who applied for DC Operators earlier also applied for Communications Specialist and the ones who came on the merit were then appointed.
7. Heard and record perused.
8. The post of DC Operators was advertised by Respondent No,3 on 31.7.2015 and it was explicitly mentioned in the advertisement that the department reserves the right to amend or cancel the advertisement for recruitment. Subsequently the PSCA was established for construction, development and maintenance of city-wide integrated command control and communications center in Lahore and other cities of Punjab. Advertisement for recruitment of Communications Specialist was issued on 6.3.2016. The process for recruitment of DC Operators was cancelled by the competent authority on 24.6.2016. In the meantime candidates who applied for the positions of DC Operators were informed by message about the cancellation of the recruitment process and were also informed that they can apply afresh in case they fulfill the eligibility criteria for Communications Specialist. Recruitmentagainst Communications Specialist were initiated and completed.
9. The question before the Court is whether a vested right has accrued in favour of the Petitioners. It is their case that since their name appeared on the final merit list, hence a vested right has accrued in their favour. The Petitioners are relying on the "Final Consolidated Result for DC Operators" dated 15.10.2015 appended at page 12 of the instant petition. In terms of the said result sheet names of successful candidates who cleared the interview are mentioned and it states the selection is subject to verification of documents, antecedents and medical fitness. Admittedly the process was not completed including medical fitness because the recruitment process was cancelled on 24.6.2016. Since the process of recruitment of DCO perators was scrapped by the competent authority and the appointment of DC Operators was subject to medical fitness, which admittedly was not carried out, therefore no vested right has accrued in favour of the Petitioners as a final merit list was never prepared. The list relied upon has only names of successful candidates after the interview. These candidates still had to undergo documents, antecedent verification and medical test. Hence this consolidate result sheet is not a merit list. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioners including PLJ 2013 Lahore 12 (supra) are not applicable to this case as the same are based on distinguishable facts.
10.In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is Made out. Both the petitions are dismissed.