ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. This common judgment shall dispose of the titled Constitutional Petitions being Nos. 48, 363, 401, 656, 678 and 1173 of 2019, as in all these matters, not only the facts are akin but the question of law is also same.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of the cases appear to be that in response to advertisement published in daily newspapers 'Daily Mashriq dated 17.05.2017' and 'Daily Express Century dated 18.02.2018' for different posts on divisional quota basis issued by respondent No. 3 i.e. Director General Mines and Minerals Department Government of Balochistan the petitioners applied for the said posts being qualified and eligible and appeared in written tests and interviews. The test and interviews were conducted by the Selection/Recruitment Committee, which was constituted by the Government of Balochistan under the Chairmanship of respondent No.3. The applications were duly processed and after completion of test and interviews the Committee through minutes of meetings held on 11.07.2018 and 12.07.2018 made recommendations for appointment of the petitioners against the respective posts but the department did not announce the result on basis of recommendations made by the Committee. Meanwhile the Provincial Government re- advertised the said posts vide publication made in Daily Jang newspaper on 16th February 2019.
Hence, these petitions.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the cases.
4. The respondents filed parawise comments and contested the petitions stating therein that replying respondent No.3 has not conveyed the respondent No.2 for approval of appointments of the petitioners due to certain legal constraints as the recruitment process got, out of hand and expended on more than fourteen months which should have been completed within four months.
Admittedly the department conducted tests and interviews and the office of the Director General Mines and Minerals Department Government of Balochistan with the approval of the competent authority constituted the Selection/Recruitment Committee for conducting test and interviews for recruitment against the posts of BPS-2 to BPS-15, comprising of the following members.
1. Director General/Director (Admn), Mines and Minerals Balochistan. (Chairman)
2. Deputy Secretary (Admn) Mines and Minerals Balochistan. (Member)
3. Under Secretary (Admn), Mines and Minerals Balochistan.; (Member).
4. Administrative Officer, Mines and Minerals Balochistan. (Secretary).
5. The committee after conducting test and interviews in a fair and transparent manner prepared the merit list and the petitioners were recommended for appointment on different posts in the department. According to parawise comments of the respondents the test and interviews were conducted in accordance with law. The only ground put forth by the respondents for re- advertisement of the said posts is protraction and delay in completion of the recruitment process.
In our humble, view such protracted and lengthy process that too without fault on the part of the candidates who had otherwise been recommended by the committee for appointment after due process, by any standards, cannot render re-advertisement of the posts justified and plausible.
There is no plausible and legal justification for cancellation of the recommendation of the committee and re-advertisement of the said posts. There is no illegality or, irregularity in the constitution of the Selection/Recruitment Committee as well.
6. It is established law that once the process of selection is completed in an ordinary manner, it cannot be upset in an arbitrary manner. The process of the recruitment was completed and all decisive steps had been taken for petitioner's appointment, thus any lapse or delay in executing a simple clerical or inconsequential formality would not render such process incomplete, as a right had accrued to the petitioner for job against vacancy for which they have been selected. Indeed a right was created in favour of the petitioners by displaying a merit list and petitioners were recommended by recruitment committee and no powers of locus poenitentiae were left with the respondents to retract their steps. Reliance in this regard can safely be placed on the case titled 2004 PLC (C. S) 99, wherein it was held as under: "Appointments against advertised posts---Petitioners qualified written test and interview and were recommended by Selection Committee---Authority made appointments on the basis of list approved by Government as per direction of higher Authorities, thus, deprived petitioners having legitimate expectation for appointment---High Court accepted Constitutional Petition with direction to respondents to issue appointment letter to petitioners---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed against judgment of the High Court."
7. For the above reasons, these petitions are accepted and the Secretary concerned is directed to issue the appointment orders of the petitioners after due verification of their credentials.