By filing this petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution) the petitioner has made following supplications: "....it is most respectfully prayed that the instant petition may very graciously be accepted and the respondent No. 2 may very kindly be directed to forthwith issue a direction to the respondent No.5 for also joining the petitioner as T/S.I. under him by declaring the very action of the respondent No. 2 excluding name of the petitioner from the list of SIs recommended for posting without any lawful authority and is no legal effect, in the supreme interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of this petition necessary for its fair adjudication as gathered from the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties are that on the requisition of Punjab Police Department, Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be called P.P.S.C.) advertised 489 posts of Sub-Inspectors and the petitioner was one of the candidates for the said post on open merit. As per final list issued by the P.P.S.C., name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 40 and he was recommended for appointment on open merit. In pursuance of these recommendations, the R.P.O. Multan (respondent No. 4) referred name of the petitioner alongwith other recommendees to the Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore for approval for issuance of appointment notification in their favour . However , in subsequent order dated 1.12.2018, impugn ed herein name of the petitioner was dropped by the said respondent No. 4 necessitating the petitioner to file instant petition with afore-noted prayer .
3. Version of the respondents for non-inclusion of name of the petitioner in subsequ ent list prepared by respondent No. 4 taken in the comments submitted in the instant petition is as under: "3. The recommendations of 489 Sub-Inspectors on open merit were forwarded to the concerned agencies for necessary verification of their character/antecedents. After the clearance from the agencies, the appointment of the recommended candidates were proceed ed in December 2018 except the candidates who were not cleared by agencies including the petitioner , who was not cleared on the basis of bad family background. One Provincial Agency reported that the Petitioner 's 03 brothers had remained associated with defunct Sipa Sahaba and their names were on 4th Schedule from 2003 to 2012. Whereas, the Federal Agency declared the candidate unsuitable for the post of Sub-Inspector on the following grounds:
1. He is not suitable because his 03 brothers namely Wajih-ur -Rehman, Masood-ur -Rehman and Rashid-ur - Rehman remained activists of SSP in 1997-2007 and also involved in sectarian cases, so this office does not clear him from security point of view .
4. Since the petitioner has not been cleared due to bad family background and declared unsuitable for the said post by the Federal Agency and he was also not eligible for appointment in the light of Rules "Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013" hence he has not been appointed to the Post of Sub-Inspector ."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that version of the respondents noted supra is unwarranted as name of brothers of the petitioners, mentioned therein, stood excluded from the list prepared under Fourth Schedule of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 by the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab Home Department vide order dated 22.6.2012 and there-after they were never included in the said list and that even said brothers of the petitioner alongwith other family members have been appointed in different gover nment departments. Relying on dictum laid down in case Muhammad Avais Khan v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and 6 others [(2018 P.L.C. (C.S.) Note 31 Peshawar (Mingora Bench)] learned counsel contends that the petitioner canno t be condemned for act of any other member(s) of his family . In the same context while referring case Abdus Salam v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab and 2 others [2019 PLC (C.S.) 503 (Lahore)] he further maintains that even lodging a criminal case against a candidate is not a legal obstacle for his appointment to a post what to speak of criminal history of some-one else for whose deeds or misdeeds the petitioner cannot be held liable.
5. Referring Rules 12.14 and 12.18 of Chapter XII Volume-II of the Police Rules 1934, learned counsel for the petitioner laid much stress to canvass that character of only a candidate and not of his family members is relevant and thus the respondents were not justified to exclude name of the petitioner from final list for appointment of the selectees of the P .P.S.C.
6. Whereas learned Law Officer has half-heartedly opposed the above legal proposition put by learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition. Even the plea of the petitioner for exclusion of names of his brothers from the Fourth Schedule prepared under Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and that still they are doing job in government department(s) could not be controverted.
7. Contentions heard.
8. To appreciate version of the respondents, Rules 12.14 and 12.18 of Chapter XII Volume-II of the Police Rules 1934, which may be of relevance for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are reproduced hereunder: "12.14. Recruits--Status of: (1) Recruits shall be of good character and great care shall be taken in selecti ng men of type suitable for police service from candidates presenting themselves for enrollment."
12.15 .......
12.16 .......
12.17 .......
12.18. Recruits--V erification of character of. (1) The character and suitability of enrolment of every recruit shall be ascertained by a reference to the lambardar of the village or ward member of the town of which the recruit is a resident. A search slip shall also be sent to the Finger Print Bureau in order to establish his freedom or otherwise from conviction. Such lambardar or ward members shall, if the recruit is of good character , furnish a certificate to that effect which shall be verified and attested by the sub-inspector in charge of the local police station. The Sub- Inspector shall also complete the information required by form 12-18(1).
It would also be advantageous to reproduce Rule 21.A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974 which reads as under: 21.A.(1) No person, not already in Government service, shall be appointed to a post unless he produces a certificate of character from the Principa l Academic Officer of the academic institution last attended and also certificates of character from two responsible persons not being his relatives who are well acquainted with his character and antecedents.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub rule (1) an appointment by initial recruitment shall be subject to the verification of character and antecedents of the candidates or the person appointed to the satisfaction of the appointing authority . (Emphasis supplied by me)
9. It seems that the afore-referred agencies in quite casual and callous/slipshod manner on the basis of old, past and closed issue prepared the afore-said negative reports. They were not realizing that their such reports may mar career of a young aspiring candidate. Even the respondents blindly accepted such reports and did not confront the same to the petitioner to know worth of the same after noticing other side of the picture. It is expected/desired that some S.O.Ps are formulated for cross-check of such unilateral reports of agencies, affecting fundamental rights of the citizens of our mother land and marring their bright future/career .
10. Having gone through different provisions of statutory law coupled with case law cited above, it is manifest that while making recruitment to any post including that of Sub-Inspectors only personal character of a candidate is relevant and he cannot be held liable/responsible for bad character/mis-deeds of any other member of his family .
Viewing the case in hand even with reference to Islamic jurisprudence, no one can be made responsible for mis- deeds of others. It has been ordained in the Holy Quran as under: "Allah (J) does not give duty to any body , beyond his power . If he does (good), he will get its return (profit), if he does (bad), he will get its return (loss).........."
(Verse 286 Surah Al-Baqarah Para 3)
"(O, Hazrat Muhammad, S)! Ask (them): Shall I find out another Lord except Allah (J) while He is the only Lord (Allah, J) of everything? And the person who does (evil) deed, its harm reaches him only and no person will bear
(lift) the burden (of evil) of another person. Then you (all) are to return to your Lord (Allah, J), Then He will clear (clarify) you in (which you) differed.
(Verse 164 Surah Al-Anaam Para 8)
"The person who follows the right path, does so for his own benefit and the person who is misled (goes astray , goes wrong), does so for his own loss and nobody will bear another person' s load (burden) and We never punish (people) until W e have sent a (Holy) Messenger (A.S.) (to preach them Allah J' s commands).
(Verse 15 Surah Bani Israeel Para 15)
"No lifter (bearer) will lift (bear) the burden of any other person and if a person, lifting, his own heavy burden (load), calls somebody (to share) his load, nobody will lift anything from it, even though he may be his near relative. (O Hazrat Muhammad, S)! you can warn (guide) only those people who fear their Lord (Allah, J) without seeing Him and set up (say) prayer and the person who is purified (becomes pious, Allah, J fearing) for his own benefit and (all the people) are to return to Allah (J).
(Verse 18 Surah Fatir Para 22)
(English translation taken from "The Holy Quran, The Easiest Translation into English" by Ch. Abdul Ghafoor Ghaf fari Arain, Vice Principal/Head of Eng. Department/Associate Prof. Government Post Graduate College V ehari, Pakistan).(Printed by Faisal Fida Printing Press, Multan).
Needless to mention that it has been made imperative through Article 227 of the Constitution that all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah (Injunctions of Islam) and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions. As such no one can be penalized/made accountable for acts of others. While evaluating the stance taken by the respondents, in the light of above noted guidelines provided by the Holy Book as well as codified law and the case law, I find that explanation given by the respondents for excluding name of the petitioner from list of Sub-Inspectors is unwarranted and uncalled for .
11. There is another aspect of the case. The petitioner has qualified the examinatio n/test(s) of the P.P.S.C. and the said Commission recommended his name being a qualified candidate. After recommendations in favour of the petitioner by the Commission, the legitimate right of job has been accrued to the petitioner and he has fair expectance for issuance of appointment letter in his favour . While before excluding name of the petitioner , for no fault on his part, neither any notice was issued to him to hear his version nor some speaking order was passed by the competent authority after hearing him. This fact alone hints that respondent No.4 has acted in utter disregard of law on his own whims whereas it is universally recognized principle of law that nobody should be condemned unheard. Reliance in this regard is placed on Gen. (R) Pervez Musharraf v. Nadeem Ahmed (Advocate) (PLD 2014 SC 585), Asim Khan and others v. Zahir Shah and others (2007 SCMR 1451 ), Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan v. Fazlur Rehman (PLD 1964 SC 410) and Naik Muhammad v. Muhammad Shabbir (2019 CLC 164 Lahore).
12. Other candidates for the above posts have been appointed by the respondents, as such the petitioner , similarly placed person, is also entitled to same treatment as per mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution, whereas under Article 4 of the Constitution it is one of the inalienable rights of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law .
13. There is yet another aspect of the case. It cannot be denied that on joining government job, the officers/ employees are retained on probation period for quite considerable time and later on after successful completion of period of probation, their services are regularized and during such period the department' s Heads/Authorities have ample opportunity to supervise the activities of their subordinates and if, for any valid and good reason, the competent authority is not satisfied with working of such probationer(s), it may proceed in accordance with law for extending probation period or passing any other order including discharge from service. Thus the afore-noted version of respondent is premature and amounts to putting the cart before horse.
14. Thus viewing from whatever angle, I find that the respondents have failed to perform their legal obligation, their refusal to issue appointment letter is unwarranted, violative of law/Rules supra and as such the petitioner has been discriminated against the mandate of constitution. Therefore, I have no other option but to allow prayer of the petitioner . Consequently , this petition is allowed and respondent No.2 to 5 are directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judl.).