MUSHTAQ MUHAMMAD, J. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Gilgit Baltistan Board of Revenue for the appointment through a competative examination for six numbers of the posts of Naib Tehsildar BS. 14 (copy available at page No.7), petitioners named above applied for the said posts. After passing the examination, the petitioners could not be selected/recommended for the said post for being runner ups, but they were included in the list of waiting candidates. DSC recommended five candidates for appointment against the advertised posts and placed the present petitioners in the waiting list with a decision that waiting list shall be valid for a period of six months. Document dated 03-01-2022 is available at page 14. The starting point of this controversy is letter dated 13-01-2022 whereby, the Finance department Gilgit Baltistan accorded sanction of 59 posts of different scales including 12 posts of Naib Tehsildar BS. 14 in Gilgit Baltistan Board of Revenue. Petitioners vide their several applications to the competent authority requested their appointment against the newly created posts of Naib Tehsildar but their request was not accepted and they constrained to file this petition under A.86(2) of Gilgit Baltistan Government Order 2018.
2. Respondents 1 to 4 contested the petition and filed their para-wise comments on 24-10-2022.
Respondents have admitted creation of 12 numbers of posts of Naib Tehsildar BS. 14 on 17-01-2022 but they are of the opinion that these pasts have been created after the recruitment process hence petitioners cannot claim these posts on the basis of their status as candidates from the waiting list. From the divergent claims of the parties following points for determination are formulated. i. Validity period of a waiting list? ii. Whether a candidate of waiting list in a recruitment process is entitled to appointment against a newly created post?
3. On the point of validity period of a waiting list, office memorandum dated 14-3-2011 annexed with para-wise comments gives the answer and according to this document validity period of a waiting list shall be one year. In view of document 14-3-2011 it is declared that validity period of waiting list shall be one year and declaration of DSC over the waiting list dated 03-01-2022 is hereby set-aside.
4. Now the second point. On this point learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has referred the documents at pages Nos. 19 to 26 and joint resolution No.28 adopted by Gilgit Baltistan legislative assembly dated 14-07-2022. Documents at pages Nos. 19 to 26 perused and deliberated.
The outcome of these documents is that Education department vide its summary No.Sec-Edu- 2(24)/2021 dated 6th June 2022 sought approval of agenda "Appointment of Elementary School Teachers (EST BS 14) from the waiting list in order of merit against vacant posts in Education Department GB". This summary was approved by the Cabinet on 30-6-2022 which resulted appointment of various teachers EST.BS.14 in the Education department. This case of appointment of candidates from waiting list cannot be relied upon in this case for the only reason that government has accorded approval of these appointments from amongst the candidates from waiting list. Similarly, the resolution of Gilgit Baltistan assembly is a mere resolution and in absence of a formal summary by the concerned department for appointment of candidates from the waiting list against newly created posts of Naib Tehsildars and in absence of approval from the competent authority, this kind of resolution cannot be accepted.
To answer this point correctly guidance is taken from the case law. First take the point of legality and purpose of waiting list prepared in a process of recruitment. In the case cited, "Ehtisham Basharat v. DIG Police and 2 others" (2023 PLC (C.S.) page 8) the purpose of preparing waiting list is explained as under:- "Purpose of preparing waiting list at the time affixing list of selected candidates was to have a contingency reserve i.e., a pool of successful candidates who could immediately fill vacancies as they arose instead of initiating recruitment process afresh for a limited number of post that could become available due to non-joining or vacancy of post after joining by selected candidates. Candidates on waiting list were to be considered for appointment, if selected candidates did not join at all or after joining left the post before expiry period of waiting list".
In "Rafaqat Ali v. Executive District Officer (Health)" (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1615) a Division Bench of Lahore High Court has held that:-- "Purpose of preparing waiting list from amongst the successful candidates was to have a contingency reserve and a pool of successful candidates who could immediately fill vacancies as they arose. Waiting list was also advantageous because the recruitment process could not be initiated for a few posts that fell vacant and as a contingency, the candidates short listed in the waiting list could fill those posts."
In the case cited, "Qaisar Abbas and 8 others v. The Province of Punjab and 2 others" (2018 PLC (C.S) 310), it has been held that:- "Waiting list for selection of candidates. Vested right of candidates on waiting list for appointment or recruitment. Waiting list prepared in an examination for recruitment did not furnish a source of recruitment and was only operative as a contingency, which are that if any selected candidate did not join then a candidate from waiting list could be pushed up for recruitment. Waiting list candidate had no vested right to be appointed, except when a selected candidate did not join while the waiting list was alive."
In a recent judgment, "Munir Hussain and 3 others v. Province of Sindh and others" (2022 SCMR 650) a full bench of honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held preparation of waiting list as' un-constitutional. Honorable Court has held that "there is no obligation on the Commission to prepare a list of the candidates who had failed to meet the merit or a waiting list to cater for a situation where a candidate otherwise qualified but having secured less marks than the other candidates may be appointed in case a seat became available in the future. In the absence of any provision in the law requiring the Commission to maintain a complete list of successful candidates whether or not they were recommended for appointment or obligating the Commission to maintain a waiting list, no legal or constitutional right accrued in favour of the petitioners to claim appointment and use the mode of approaching the High Court seeking to invoke constitutional jurisdiction to grant relief."
In the case cited, "Junaid Ali and another v. Government of Gilgit Baltistan and others" (W.Ps.
Nos. 163 and 190/2018) a division bench of this court has held that, "it is also pertinent to mention here that as per Office memorandum dated 14th March 2011, in case of non-joining of principal nominees, subsequent alternative nomination shall be made out of the reserved/waiting list within the validity of period of one year."
Rel. Musa Wazir's case (1993 SCMR 1124)
5. Concluding the matter in view of the above cited judgments it is recorded that waiting list candidates can claim appointment within the validity period of waiting list if any selected candidate either did not join the post or left the same after joining. Candidates on a waiting list have no right to use the "waiting list" as an open license to hunt the post anywhere at any time.
Candidates on a waiting list are only for the purpose of contingency and nothing beyond that.
Candidates on a waiting list have no vested right of appointment even in case the principal nominee did not join the post. In that case too, the appointment of a candidate on waiting list shall be subject to recommendation of the relevant department and approval of the competent authority. Waiting list prepared after a recruitment process shall be relevant and admissible to the post of said recruitment alone and waiting list of candidates shall not be valid to the newly created post even if the said posts are created during the validity period of waiting list. The posts of Naib Tehsildars as claimed by the petitioners on the basis of their standing as waiting candidates were created subsequent to the recruitment process therefore, these newly created posts shall be filled through a transparent method of appointment according to the relevant Rules. Answer to the second point is in negative.
6. In view of the above, this petition being meritless is hereby dismissed. Certified copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary Services and GAD Gilgit-Baltistan for intimation. Order announced. File.