Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, J. The matter of recruitment was dealt with by this Court in W.P. No, 3809/2010 challenged by the petitioner alongwith other co-petitioners and this Court vide order dated 19.09.2012 formulated a committee headed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur with two members i,e, E.D.O. and M.O., Bahawalnagar requiring them to answer the following four questions:
(i) Whether the seats pertaining to open merit were to be filled from amongst the residents of District Bahawalpur or there was any exception? If so what was the ratio.
(ii) Whether the persons mentioned at Serial Nos, 3, 6, 11, 26, 39, 28, 55, 82 and 90 in the merit list were entitled to be appointed against the said post as they possessed domicile other than District Bahawalnagar;
(iii) What was the qualification for the post and whether the, persons possessing BEMS (Bachelor of Eastern Medicine Science) degree were eligible to be appointed against the' said post with specific reference to persons mentioned at Serial No, 11, 15, 31 and 42 in the merit list.
(iv) Whether in case of non-acceptance of appointment by a selectee the person next in the merit list was to be appointed? If so who has been appointed on the said analogy.
The Committee after holding the detailed inquiry reached on the conclusion in the following manner:--
1. That NTS test marks could not be included in the merit list as there is no such provision in the Recruitment Policy, 2004. It was inadvertently mentioned in the advertisement that the marks of NTS test will be included in the merit list.
2. Preference has been given to the candidates of District Bahawalnagar.
3. 5% quota of women has been observed.
4. Award of marks on the basis of interview is the discretion of Recruitment Committee.
5. It has been established from the record/report that as many as 04 No, posts were available during 190-days of the recommendations of the Selection Committee i,e, 25.06.2010 to 01.01.2011.
Against these posts the petitioners of WP.No, 6596/2011/BWP M/s Irfan Aslam, Mansoor Ahmad and Ali Raza Khan could have been offered appointments. But appointment letters/offers were not made to them.
2. Consequently, it was the duty of the respondents to implement the observations/proposals concluded by the said Committee,- as it was based on the directions issued by this Court, presumed to be part of the order of this Court elated 19.09.2012. However, the respondents had not implemented the said proposals formulated by the said Committee. Consequently, the instant writ petition was filed by the present petitioner.
3. This Court after 'hearing the parties on 20.01.2016 decided to issue show-cause notice to the delinquents-respondents and in . consequence whereof, the respondents issued the appointment letters to all 17-applicants in waiting and same were placed on record alongwith dispatch receipts, which are-as follows:-- Sr.
No.NTS Roll No. Name with address CNIC
1. 440386 Irian Aslam s/o Muhammad As lam, r/o House No, 786/790, Moh. Tail ianwala Noor Street, Bahawalnagar.31101-6677090- 7
2. 440061 Abid Hanif s/o Muhammad Hanif, r/o House No, XVI-148/A near Shaheen Pet Rokum Service High Way Road Chatt Quorter Chishtian31102-1054805- 1
3. 441514 Umer Farooq s/o Muhammad lqbal Adil r/o Master Muhammad Ibrahim Canal Colony near Al Hurmat PIS Bahawalnagar.31101-8914245- 5
4. 440778 Muhammad Azhar s/o Nazir Ahmad r/o Mouza Niaz Pur P.O. Ashraf Shah, Mailsi.36602- 0925883-7
5. 441518 Usman Ilyas Ghumman s/o Muhammad Ilyas r/o Al Falah College Marot Tehsil Fort Abbas District, Bahawalnagar31103-11 61408- 3
6. 440320 Hafiz Shakir Ali s/o Abdul Latif r/o H. No, 446/B-II Neelam Block Allama lqbal Town.31304- 1589427-7
7. 440303 Hafiz Muhammad Akbar Shakir s/o Abdul Latif r/o Jamia Sheikh-ul-Islam Masjid Basti Khohran, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar.31105- 7839334-3
8. 440722 Muhammad ArsIan Shoukat s/o Shoukat Ali r/o Ayyub Hall Room No, 9D University of Agriculture Faisalabad.31205- 7503057-3
9. 440305 Hafiz Muhammad Asif s/o Muhammad Eesa r/o Ward No, 10 Street Hakeem Chinioti House No, 368/16, Lodhran.36203- 7831949-5
10. 440300 Hafiz Faisal Rafiq s/o Muhammad Rafiq r/o St.
No, 4 Islami Colony Airport Road, Bahawalpur.31202- 8363440-5
11. 440030 Abdul Mustafa Jamil slo Riaz Ahmed do H. No, 21- A St 4 Nadeem Park Near Shezan Factory Bund Road Lahore.31104- 6494532-9
12. 441834 Humna Shafiq d/o Mohammad Shafiq Bhatti r/o M. Shafiq Bhatti Zaildar Town near Tamir-e- Milli School Bahawalnagar.31101-8720971- 2
13. 440087 Afzal Sajjad Masih s/o Saddique Masih r/o THQ Hospital, Chishtian.31102- 2604048-9
14. 441561 Zahid Aslam s/o Aslam Masih r/o House No, 09, Street No, 01 Christian Colony near Chowk Fawara, Chishtian.31102-2066107- 5
15. 441263 Philemon Fazal UI Qader s/o Ghulam Qadir Masih r/o Noshahi Cloth House Chaman Bazar, Chishtian.36104.0507616- 5
16. 440491 Mansoor Ahmad s/o Abdul Aziz r/o Street 8 In front of Madni Mosque Madni Colony, Bahawalnagar.31101-3576471- 3
17. 440115 Ali Riaz Khan s/o Riaz Hameed Khan r/o H. No, 15, Eid Gah Road, Bahawalnagar.36202- 2457114-1 In contempt proceedings they tendered written un-conditional apology. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to drop the contempt proceedings and consequently discharge the show- cause notices and decided to conclude the matter, as the order of this Court had been complied lied with.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after display of merit list, there were only 190- days with respondents to issue the appointment letters and after lapse of said stipulated period, they. could not issue the appointment letters to the applicants arrayed in the waiting list. However, he is fair enough to provide the assistance regarding the wisdom of Rule of 190-days. He has also referred the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court reported as Shabana Akhtar v.
District Coordination Officer, Bhakkar and 2 other's 2012 PLC (C.S.) 366, which still holds field according to him.
5. I have examined the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in light of the judgment referred supra. It is astonishing that despite clear directions-guidelines enunciated in the referred judgment, whereby the significance and applicability of the rule of 190-days was obvious, the respondents therein have not so far issued directions to all the heads of the departments to follow the ratio qua rule of 190-days while exhausting the merit list. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs are re-produced herein below:-- With the above checklist, let us evaluate the logic and wisdom of the government behind the rule of 190 days. Learned Law officer in support of the said rule stated that there should be a timeframe to complete the requirement process and the Merit List must stand discarded after that. He contended that Merit List cannot go on indefinitely.
One simple situation could have been that once the top candidate according to the Merit List was duly appointed, the remaining Merit List is discarded and in case the top candidate refuses to join, fresh recruitment process is initiated. However, this is not the case here. Policy-2004 keeps the Merit List alive for 190 days and states that any vacancy arising after the said period cannot be filled on the basis of the Merit List as it stands expired.
The Merit List is kept alive, under Policy, 2004 and rightly so, in order to meet administrative exigencies and hence assumes the status of a Waiting List once the top candidate is duly appointed. The Merit List transferred into a Waiting List is actually a list of selected eligible candidates, who have successfully filtered through the recruitment process. They are a valuable human resource, a contingency reserve from amongst the successful candidates, which can feed any unsuspected vacancy.
Other advantages of a merit list-cum-waiting list are that vacancy can be filled immediately without re-coursing to a full-fledged recruitment process starting with a fresh public advertisement. Waiting List mechanism saves public money, human resource and time spent on carrying out a full course recruitment process. In case only one or two vacancies occur they can be immediately filled without waiting for a fresh recruitment process to be initiated and without keeping several posts vacant for a considerable period of time. As vacancy can arise at any time, the contingency plan in the shape of an operational Waiting List must also be available as long as the post continues. Hence, there can be no timeframe or a cut off date for the expiry of the Waiting List. It is surely not binding on the candidates to remain on the Waiting List and are free to search for other and better employment prospecs, but till they do so, their names continue to be retained on the Waiting List. As and when vacancy arises the said candidates can be contacted and if they are available the vacancy cane be duly filled. The only time Waiting List might lose its utility and efficacy is when the eligibility criteria, to the post in question is altered or if the post itself is abolished or restructured or reorganized.
On a socio-economic level, the students at the school are deprived of S.E.S.E. and have to wait till the next recruitment, takes place. This affects the education of the students as it unnecessarily deprives them of a teacher, which is without any rational justification when the Merit/Waiting List has a number of duly selected teachers who can be immediately appointed to the post, thereby providing uninterrupted education to the students. The policy makers have given little thought to the above-mentioned considerations.
For the above reasons we first hold that the Contract Policy, 2004 has no application to the present case and has been over-rigidly applied to the case of the appellant without evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case. Subject to the qualification, hereunder, we also hold that the validity period of 190-days for the expiry of Merit List is unreasonable and therefore cannot be sustained in law. However, rule of 190 days can still have a limited application to the extent that where no candidate in the Merit List/Waiting List comes forward to be appointed to the post in spite of the offer made by the department, in such eventuality the merit list can come to an end after a period of 190 days and the department can initiate fresh recruitment process".
6. This writ petition stands disposed of being fructified. The office is directed to transmit copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, government of the Punjab, for necessary action in order to ensure implementation of the verdict given by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the judgment referred ibid reproduced in the preceding para.