KAMRAN HAYAT MIANKHEL, J.----Petitioner, Muhammad Zada, seeks to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, on acceptance of instant writ petition, the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner from the date of his application on the said post i.e. Chokidar in Govt.
Primary School, Sherin Abad BPS-4, and any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be given to the petitioner."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner on having come to know about vacant post of Class-IV in Government Primary School, Sherin Abad, District Battagram, applied for the same.
The respondent No.3, informed online about conduct of test/interview for the post of Class-IV in District Battagram and directed all the concerned who applied for the post to appear for the said purpose on 19.07.2019. The petitioner was interviewed on the said date, however, on the next day i.e. 20.07.2019, he came to know through newspaper that the same posts were again advertised by respondent No.3. The petitioner visited the office of respondent No.3 to inquire about the advertisement, where he was informed that publication was mere a formality and the appointments would be made on basis of interview already conducted. The petitioner was surprised, when respondent. No.3 issued appointment order of Class-IV employees in whole district but no appointment was made in Government Primary School, Sherin Abad. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The respondents were put on notice and respondent No. 3 filed parawise comments raising therein factual as well as legal objections and opposed the stance of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that respondent No.3 published online date of test / interview for vacant post of Class-IV in District Battagram and later on petitioner came to know about the advertisement published in Daily Sarhad News, Abbottabad dated 20.07.2019 for the same Clas-IV post. He further argued that petitioner inquired about the advertisement from the office of respondent No.3, who told him that publication is only formality and the appointments will be made on the basis of interviews conducted earlier. He argued that respondent No.3 made appointments vide office order dated 21.08.2019 of Class-IV employees in District Battagram but left one seat vacant on which the petitioner has applied without any reason.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on unreported judgment delivered by this court in W.P.No.472-A/2020 decided on 24.11.2020. Learned counsel for AAG further argued that the above said vacant seat was not filled because of transfer / adjustment order of one Gul Baz Khan Chowkiar GPS, Kohani was in process and he was adjusted at that seat at GPS Shireen Abad (Kuza Bandai) Battagram.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. Perusal of the record depicts that vide advertisement online dated 18.07.2019 candidates were called to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 19.07.2019 who have earlier applied for post of Class-IV. The petitioner was also interviewed but he was not selected and the post was filled through transfer of one Gul Baz Khan. The record further shows that other posts of Class-IV were filled but this post was not filled and remained vacant and later on through transfer / adjustment of one Gul Baz Chowkidar was adjusted on the vacant post of GPS, Shireen Abad (Kuza Bandai)
Battagram. The only excuse for non-appointing the petitioner on the above said post was that the transfer / adjustment was in progress and that is why the post was left vacant. The reliance placed by learned Additional Advocate General on unreported judgment of this court delivered in Writ Petition No.473-A1 2020 decided on 24.11.2020 is of no help to the department, as in this case the post was never advertised but here the respondents have not denied in their comments about the advertisement of the impugned post. It is trite law that alike should be treated alike and it was right of the petitioner that he should be treated in the same mode and manner as others who were appointed vide order dated 21.08.2019. The treatment so metted out to the petitioner is totally discriminatory and against the norms of justice. Reasonable classification means different treatment of un-equals and classification could be made between two groups which are substantially not placed in similar circumstances or conditions. Reliance in this regard is placed on 2015 PLC (C.S.) 283, which held that:- "There is no cavil to the concept of 'reasonable classification' and we are mindful of the fact that "Equity before Law" means that like should be treated alike and it forbids discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions, however it does not forbid different treatment of un equals and classification could be made between two groups which are substantially not placed in similar circumstances or condition."
8. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is admitted and allowed as prayed for.
Arguments heard. Record perused.