JAWAD HASSAN, J.---Petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this. Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution") by challenging a quasi-judicial Order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Respondent No.1 (the "Impugned Order") pursuant to directions issued in W.P.No.174443 of 2018.
2. Facts of the case are that the Petitioners applied for the respective posts advertised by the Respondent No 1. After fulfilling the codal formalities, the Petitioners were selected and their names was reflected in final merit list. After lapse of seven months, appointment orders were not issued in their favour by the Respondents which prompted them to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.174443 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.03.2018 pursuant to which the impugned order has been passed.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners inter alia contends that the recruitment committee after completing, all codal formalities, issued final list wherein the Petitioners' name were reflected at Sr.Nos.24, 26, 34, 49, 55, 691, 879, 1452 but due to political pressure, the Respondents did not issue appointment letters as such vested rights accrued in their favour; that the notification on the basis of which the representation of the Petitioners was rejected is not attracted to the case of the Petitioners; that the Respondent No.1 has wrongly interpreted the Notification as such the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
4. Report and parawise comments were filed on behalf of the Respondents vehemently denying the allegations levelled in the petition and praying for dismissal of the same.
5. Learned Law Officer supported the report and parawise comments and submitted that the recruitment process could not be finalized due to transfer of the then CEO and as such statutory period of 190 days lapsed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record.
7. The only grievance agitated by the Petitioners is that they were selected on merit and their names vide also reflected in the final merit list but appointment letters could not be issued in their favour despite lapse of considerable time. While the stance of the Respondents is that statutory period of 190 days has lapsed as such the Petitioners are not entitled for the appointment. It evinces from the record that the Petitioners applied for the respective posts as mentioned in the advertisement issued in year 2017. Their names are reflecting in final merit list at Sr.Nos.24, 26, 34, 49, 55, 691, 879, 1452 which is duly signed by the members of the Recruitment Committee and is in consonance with Pam 13(vi) of the Recruitment Policy, 2004 which reads that "the merit list shall be signed by the Chairman as well as all members of the Selection Committee". In the impugned order, the Respondent No.1 observed as under: "The undersigned also examined the record and it transpired through policy guidelines given by the Notification of Government of the Punjab, S&GAD, Lahore No.SOR.IV (S&GAD)10-4/2017, (Regulation Wing), dated Lahore the 20th December, 2017 sub Para ix of para-VIII of Contract Appointment Policy, 2004 provides that "the merit list shall remain valid for a period of 190 days from the date of recommendations of the relevant Selection Committee and the appointment authority shall complete the process of appointment within the said period".
Hence keeping in view the record perusal and policy guide lines it is an established fact that the starting period of 190 days given for the validity of merit lists have lapsed, so the reliance of Petitioners in the given merit list will not be tenable"
8. The reliance of the Respondent No.1 on above said clause is not reasonable and he has misinterpreted the same while passing the impugned order because, first part of clause speaks about the validity of 190 days while the second part of the said clause deals with the completion of recruitment process within the said period. So far as the first part is concerned, the period of validity of 190 days relates to first appointment to the post and is also applicable to the subsequent appointments while the second part of the clause is directory in nature and relates to direction to the appointing authority to complete the recruitment process within 190 days; meaning thereby once recruitment process is commenced then it has to be completed by the appointing authority within the statutory period. In the case in hand, the recruitment process was initiated by the Respondents and the Petitioners were selected by the recruitment committee and their names were also mirrored in the final selection list which fact is admitted by the Respondents in the report and parawise comments. The Respondents have specifically taken the stance that the recruitment process was stopped due to transfer of the then CEO. The said stance of the Respondents is not believable in as much as the recruitment process has to be completed within the statutory period of 190 days and, if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted as correct that the recruitment process B was stopped due to transfer of the then CEO even then, it was the duty of the Respondents' authority to give the charge to some other officer to perform functions in a smooth manners but nothing has been brought on record by the Respondents in this regard. Hence, the Petitioners cannot be blamed or denied their right of appointments on the basis of above said clause when they have validly been selected by the appointing authority. It is noted that the government functionaries usually tried their level best to deprive the candidates from their secured and guaranteed constitutional promises of impartial, fair and just treatment in certain cases just to accommodate their own blue eyed persons. Abuse of such kind of discretion by a public functionary, therefore, violates Article 4 of the Constitution as it impairs due process and right of a person to be treated in accordance with law.
9. In view of above, this petition is allowed and Impugned Order is set-aside. The Respondents are directed to issue appointment letters to the Petitioners forthwith. Office is directed to dispatch a copy of this order to the Administrative Secretary of the department concerned to take stern action against the delinquent(s) because the Petitioners had to suffer a lot of mental agony beside remaining jobless for more than three years due to contumacious conduct of the Respondents. A compliance report shall be submitted to the Court through Additional Registrar (Judicial).