SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J.---- Petitioners through instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of-Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, approached this Court, with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of the instant constitut ional petition, the respondent No.3 may graciously be directed to issue the appointment orders of the petitioners against the post of Police Constables at District Kohistan on the analogy of similarly placed candidates out of the same merit list forthwith. Any other writ, order or relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may also be issued/passed."
2. In essence, the grievance of the petitio ners is that they were duly declared as qualified after passing screening test conducted by NTS for the post of police constables at District Kohistan and consequently they were interviewed and their personality test was also conducted at Police Lines, Abbot tabad on 15.11.2016. However , some of the petitioners were recommended for appointment and the rest were referred to CPO Selection Board, Peshawar for review , where they appeared and also subjected to interview and personality test, and were recommended for appointment; however , respondent No.3 notwithstanding the recommendations of Review Board and Selection Committee, refused to issue appointment orders of the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The respondents submitted their parawise comments to the writ petition and admitted that the petitioners remained successful in their NTS test, interview as well as personality test and recommended by the Selection Board for their appointment against the vacant posts of constables in District Kohistan. However , they asserted that the present petition is hit by principle of `laches' as the matter agitated by the petitioners pertains to the year , 2016.
4. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AAG heard and the available record perused with their able assistance.
5. At the very outset it may be mentioned that this Court had earlier decided similar W.Ps. Nos.13-A/2017 and 17- A/2017, through common judgment dated 18.07.2017, wherein, it has been observed that: "7. Admittedly , the respondents have not denied the factum of successfu l completion of the requisite selection process by the petitioners for their recruitment as constables in District Kohistan. However , the respondents asserted that there were only 33 vacancies available for District Kohistan, which were filled by appointing 33 candidates. The assertion of respondents regarding number of vacancies was controverted by the petitioners and in this regard, they placed on record policy letter containing, instructions regarding recruitment of constables in KP Police through NTS bearing No.10348-79 dated 21.10.2016, issued by respondent No.1, Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Central Police Office, Peshawar , addressed to CCPO, Peshawar , RPOs, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and DPOs, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The said letter clearly provides that 'the district-wise detail of available vacancies is enclosed herewith for ready reference. The DPOs to call the candidates for psychological test/intervi ew as proposed against the vacancy position of each District'.
The vacancy position for District Kohistan, provided in the table annexed thereto is as under: District/Unit Vacancies Candidates to called psychological test/InterviewDistrict Vacancies xFRP Vacancy Elite V acancy Total Kohistan 53 1 16 70 90 8. It has been also provided in the said letter that the waiting list of the candidates prepared by the NTS would remain valid till 31st December, 2016. The extract from the letter in this respect is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: 'Validity of Merit List up-to 31st December , 2016.
The waiting list of the candidates in order of merit as prepared by the NTS should be displayed on prominent places in all Police offices and the same has also been uploaded on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police official website. The waiting list would remain valid title 31st December , 2016 and any occurring vacancy in the district will be filled by picking up candidates from the waiting list in order of seniority ."
Learned AAG when confronted with the said letter dated 21.10.2016 availa ble on record, was unable to controvert the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard rather he categorically admitted the genuineness of the said document being issued by the competent authority . Learned AAG could not produce any other document in rebuttal to the document submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. Undoubtedly , a 'right' did accrue to the petitioners, when they initially applied, appeared and qualified the requisite test and interview and were subsequently duly recommended for appointment as constables by the concerned Selection Board. Thereafter , denial thereof by the respo ndents on flimsy and vague grounds is obviously against transparency and good governance.
10. Keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court reached to an inescapable conclusion that at the time of recruitment of constables of District Kohistan, 70 vacancies were lying vacant but respondent No.3 in view of clear instructions by the competent authority has failed to comply with the same and refused to appoint the petitioners without assigning any plausible reasons notwithstanding the successful completion of all the codal formalities that too under the vigilant eye of respondent No.3. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioners were duly recommended by the competent Selection Board for appointment and respondent No.3 despite availability of vacancies in District Kohistan violated the clear instructions of the competent authority , which action of respondent No.3 is illegal, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and based on mala fide on his part.
11. Consequently , both the writ petitions are accepted and respondent No.3 is directed to issue appointment orders of the petitioners against the posts of police constab les at District Kohistan with immediate effect. All the C.Ms. filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners stand disposed of accordingly .
6. It is obvious from record of the case that the present petitioners having successfully qualified the requisite tests and interview were duly recommended by the selection Committee/Board for appointment and they were required to have appointed by the respondents in view of the said recommendations. However , the respondents without assigning any cogent and plausible reason denied appointment to the petitioners despite the fact that they obtained higher marks than those who have been appointed by them, as shown by the petitioners in the tables drawn in the rejoinder in response to answer Para 4 of the comments filed by the respondents, which could not be controverted by them. The petitioners, who were sailing in the same boat with those who were petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions, were required to have given similar treatment. Nevertheless, they were ignored by the respondents with mala fide, which is palpable on face of the record. The right accrued to the petitioners after their successful completion of process, could not be denied to them and they were entitled to be extended similar treatment.
Moreover , there were 70 vacancies for District Kohsitan during the year, 2016 as mentioned in the judgment of this Court in the abovementioned writ petitio ns and as per assertion of the respondents in their comments, only 33 candidates were appointed during the year, 2016, meaning thereby , that there were available 37 more vacancies, out of which 24 candidates were appointed in view of directions of this Court rendered in the judgment dated 18.07.2017 in writ petitions referred to above. As such, still 14 vacancies were available at the time when the petitioners were recommended by the competent Selection Committee/Review Board but they were ignored without any reason what to say about cogent or plausible reason. In such a scenario, principle of "laches" as agitated by learned A.A.G., does not attract or apply to the case of the petitioners.
7. In short and in view a foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the petitioners are 'similarly placed' with the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions, therefore, the same treatment would also be given to them, in accordance with law. Accordingly , the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to adjust the petitioners against the vacant posts of constables in District Kohistan.