MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Through this single judgment I intend to decided above-captioned writ petition as well as W.P. No. 12948/14 and 13000/14 as common question of law and facts are involved in all the matters.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 invited applications for recruitment, inter-alia, for the posts of Additional Director (BS-19), Deputy Director (BS-18) and Assistant Director (BS-1 7) vide advertisement published in Daily Nawa-i-W aqt dated 13.03.2012. Pursuant to said advertisement, petitione rs Ali Imran Haider Gondal and Shahzad Hussain Bukhari applied for the posts of Assistant Director (BS-17), petitioner Shehzada Khurram lqbal applied for the post of Deputy Director (BS-18) and Sarfraz Hussain applied for the post of Additional Director (BS- 19) and after going through recruiting process, the petitioners were recommende d for appointments against their respective posts by the Selection Comm ittee. However , they were not issued appointment orders. Aggrieved petitioners Ali Imran Haider Gondal and Shahzad Hussain Bukhari filed writ petition No. 1133/14 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 03.04.2014 with the following direction:--- "Under the circumstances, since the Respondents are in the process of recruiting Assistant Directors (BS-17), the Petitioners having qualified may be considered for the post of Assistant Directors (BS-17) in the present recruitment process."
3. It is alleged that the respondents, over and above the aforesaid directions of this Court have invited fresh applications for appointment against the said posts vide advertisement dated 04.01.2014 published in Daily Nawa- i-Waqt instead of considering the petitioners who have already qualified for their respective appointments.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. It is not denying the fact that all the petitioners after going through different parlays were declared successful for their appointments against their respective posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 1,3.03.2012. The matter was kept in abeyance which constrained the petitioners to file- writ petition No. 1133/2014 in which above- reproduced direction was passed. The respondents in sheer violation of the direction of this Court has given fresh advertisement inviting applications for recruitment against the said posts requiring the same qualification which was earlier given and qualified by the petitioners. Learned Law Officer has not been able to give satisfactory explanation as to why appointment letters were not issued to the petitioners when admittedly they had qualified the recruiting process and duly recommended by -the Selection Committee of the respondents and why fresh advertisement has been given for the same posts with the same required qualification. It is stated by the learned Law Officer that owing to administrative reasons, the earlier recruitment process could not be complete, and that the recommendations of Selection Committee have elapsed on 21.12.2012. However, he failed to point out any fault of the petitioners in this regard. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the respondents neither challenged the aforesaid order/direction of this Court nor showed any plausible reason for not implementing the same. In the criminal original No. 208-W/2015 filed by the present petitioners they have tried to take shelter under the plea that due to pendency of these writ petitions, the order of this Court could not be implemented. Undisputedly the petitioners were selected on merit pursu ant to the advertisement through due process of recruitment and their appointment letters could not be issued for no fault of them. After their selection a right was accrued in favour of the petitioners for their appointments which cannot be set at naught at the personal likings and disliking of the respondents. The respondents have failed to put forth any solid reasons for withholding appointment orders of the petitioners. The impugned act of the respondents appears to be mala fide and colourful exercise of their authority which calls for indulgence of this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. For what has been stated above, all the three writ petitions are allowed . Respondents are directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioners for their respective posts at the earliest within a period of one month from the date hereof.