SHAHID WAHEED, J.----The petitioner and respondent No.3 ventured their applications before the Punjab Public Service Commission ("the Commission" ) for appointment to the post of Lectu rer Social Work (BS-17). The Commission after conducting written test and interview recommended the name of respondent No.3 along with three others for the said post to the Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab vide Letter No.PSC- RB-I/2017/267 dated 08th September , 2017. The petitioner thereupon made a complaint before the. Commission with the allegation that respondent No.3 had concealed the fact that he was working as Social Case Worker in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights and also had not furnished the NOC of his employer , which he was obliged to do. The Commission forwarde d the complaint to the Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab for further necessary action.
2. The documents appended with this petition open out that pursuant to the reference made by the Commission, the Secretary , Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab initiated inquiry and served a notice upon respondent No.3 for affording him personal hearing. On consideration of the matter , the Secretary , Higher Education Department through order dated 17th April, 2018 found the allegations made against respondent No.3 valid and thus, made observation that the recommendation for his appointment for the said post was liable to be withdrawn.
3. Sequel 'to the order dated 17th April, 2018, the Commission initiated proceedings against respondent No.3 in accordance with Policy Decision No.6.2(a). Respondent No.3 appeared before the Commission and stated that he did not conceal any fact from the Commission as he was not in Government service at the time of submitting online application for the post of Lecturer Social Work. He further submitted that he joined the service as a Social Case Worker on 16th August, 2017 in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights while the closing date for the said post was 10th July, 2017. The Commission got the statement of respondent No.3 confirmed from the Ministry of Law and found it correct. On the basis of above facts, the Commission sought opinion/advice from the Regulations/O&M Wing of S&GAD, Government of the Punjab. The opinion/advice of the Regulation Wing was to the following ef fect: - "i. Mr . Muhammad Javed Amjad applied for the post of Lecturer Social Work on 09.07.2017. ii. He was appointed as. Social Case Worker on contract basis in a project of Ministry of Human Rights on 16.08.2017. iii. He resigned from the said post in the Ministry of Human Rights on 30.1 1.2017. iv. S&GAD has also advised in the said reference that the above said candidate was not in Government Service at the time of submitting his application for the post of Lecturer , Social Worker (Male)( BS-17 ) and he did not need to submit NOC/Departmental Permission Certificate."
Relying upon the above cited advice/opin ion, the Commission rejected the compla int of the present petitioner . So, this constitutional petition.
4. Petitioner's sole ground to challenge ,the appointment of respondent No.3 is that he did not obtain NOC from the Ministry of Law while applying for the post of Lecturer Social Work (BS-17). It is not disputed that respondent No.3 applied for the said post on 9th July, 2017 whereas he was appointed as Social Case Worker on contract basis in a project of Ministry of Law on 16th August, 2017. It means that at the time of submitting online application for the post of Lecturer Social Work, respondent No.3 was not in service. If that was so, the condition of furnishing NOC from the Ministry of Law could not be imposed upon respondent No.3 and thus, he could not be held guilty of any concealment of fact. The advice rendered by the Regulations/O&M Wing of S&GAD, Government of the Punjab was valid and the conclusion is that the allegation made in the complaint of the present petitioner was not well founded. The Commission, therefore, rightly rejected the complaint of the present petitioner and resultantly , interference in the impugned order is uncalled for .
5. Dismissed.