ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. The petitioner filed instant petition with the following prayer: i. To declare the act of respondent No. 2 for not issuing of appointment order to petitioner against the post of Wireless Operator (BPS-05) for which he has recommended for appointment through Minutes of Meeting held on 25th and 26th July, 2019 after observing all coddle (-) formalities as illegal, unlawful, mala fide, unconstitutional and in excess of authority.
To declare that petitioner is entitled to be issued appointment order against the post of Wireless Operator (BPS-05) being recommended for appointment through Minutes of Meeting held on 25th and 26th July, 2019 after fulfillment of all codal formalities.
To direct the respondents to issue appointment order of petitioner against the post of Wireless Operator (BPS-05) as soon as possible. iv. Any other relief which may deem fit and appropriated (-) to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be awarded, in the interest of justice.
2. Heard and perused the record. The record reveals that in pursuance of publication applications were invited from the candidates for different categories in Balochistan Levies Force District Killa Saifullah. The petitioner along with other interested candidates submitted applications for the post of Wireless Operator (BPS-05). The petitioner with other candidates appeared in test and interview.
The recruitment committee comprising Mr. Sanaullah Kakar (Chairman), Director Admin/Finance Balochistan Levies Force Quetta, (representative of Director General (BLF), Quetta, Mr. Atiq-ur- Rehman Deputy Commissioner Killa Saifullah, Member, Mr. Haroon Rasheed Assistant Commissioner Killa Saifullah and Mr. Hassan Ali (representative of Home Department Government of Balochistan) in their meeting held on 25th and 26th July, 2019 have recommended the names of successful candidates for appointment. Despite lapse of considerable period the respondents have not issued appointment order of successful candidates.
3. The record reveals that the respondent on 16th May, 2022 advertised the posts. The respondents in para-wise comments did not mention any reason for not approving the names of recommended candidates.
4. The respondent No. 3 did not mention any reason for non-appointing the successful candidates, only stated that there was public outcry over alleged irregularities and extended undue favour to some candidates. Mere bald assertion on the part of official respondent cannot be termed as gospel truth. There is no specific allegation against the recruitment committee who had favoured some candidates. The respondent is under legal obligation to prove the allegation with record. The respondent had not annexed any document in regard of any action taken against the recruitment committee for conducting test and interview in non transparent manner.
5. So far the contention of learned AAG that due to lapse of considerable period the posts has been re-advertised. After completion of recruitment, the process cannot be cancelled on sweet will or in capricious manner. When a right has accrued the same cannot be taken away without due process of law. The petitioner and others are expected to be appointed. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is applicable in the case of petitioner. As per Halsbury's Laws of England volume 1(1) 9th edition paragraph 81 at pages 151-152 it is prescribed that: "A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise from a representation or promise made by the authority including an implied representation or from consistent past practice."
Reliance is placed on case Uzma Manzoor v. Vice-Chancellor Khushal Khan Khattak University, Karak, 2022 SCMR 694, wherein it was held: "12. The doctrine of legitimate expectation connotes that a person may have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by administrative authorities owing to some uniform practice or an explicit promise made by the concerned authority. In fact, a legitimate expectation ascends in consequence of a promise, assurance, practice or policy made, adopted or announced by or on behalf of government or a public authority. When such a legitimate expectation is obliterated, it affords locus standi to challenge the administrative action and even in the absenteeism of a substantive right, a legitimate expectation may allow an individual to seek judicial review of a wrongdoing and in deciding whether the expectation was legitimate or not, the courts may consider that the decision of public authority has breached a legitimate expectation and if its proved then the court may annul the decision and direct the concerned authority/person to live up to the legitimate expectation. This doctrine is basically applied as a tool to watch over the actions of administrative authorities and in essence imposes obligations on all public authorities to act fair and square in all matters encompassing legitimate expectation. --"
6. Admittedly the petitioner along with other candidates have been recommended by the recruitment committee which create a right to the petitioner to be appointed. The recommendation cannot be brush aside on the whim of respondents. Any authority endorsed with the performance of public duties cannot neglect to perform its duty indefinitely. A public duty would have been reasonable but there seems absolutely no justification for delaying the matter for about two years which has caused harm, mental agony to the candidates. Reliance is placed on case Munir Ahmed v. Minister for Home and Tribal Affairs, Government of Balochistan, Quetta, 2007 PLC (C.S.) 679 Balochistan, wherein it was held: "7. We have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties learned counsel. It may be noted that through advertisement dated 12-5-2003 applications for appointment on different posts of levies department lying vacant in different districts were invited, pursuant to which petitioners Munir Ahmed and Attaullah applied for the posts of Risaldar Levies and Levies Sepoy respectively from Chaghi District. Meanwhile Chaghi District was bifurcated into two districts i.e. Chaghi and Nushki. The Selection Committee constituted by the Government of Balochistan vide Notification No. SO(TA)6-8/2003/330-1466 dated 12-8-2004 after conducting test and interviews recommended name of petitioner Munir Ahmed for the post of Risaldar Levies and Attaullah for the post of Levies Sepoy. It may further be noted that the Selection Committee was for the whole Province and besides recommending names of petitioners Munir Ahmed and Allaullah, they also recommended various candidates for appointment but surprisingly only appointments in respect of Chaghi District were withheld, whereas; recommendations of the Selection Committee for other districts were given due weight and appointments were made accordingly, therefore; it could not be said that the Selection Committee was biased or they committed any irregularity in the process, otherwise the Government would have not accepted the recommendations of such Committee in respect of other districts. No reasons have been assigned for withholding appointments of petitioners which act on the part of competent authority is arbitrary and discriminatory and could not be approved. We are conscious of the fact that recommendations of the Selection Committee are not binding upon the appointing authority, however; while rejecting such recommendations there must be some reasons for rejection as discretion vested in the competent authority is to be exercised judiciously with full application of mind and not in arbitrary manner, otherwise; spirit behind the rules that the candidates should be selected through Selection Committee in order to maintain transparency in the process would be defeated and the appointing authority would go on rejecting the recommendations of the Selection Committee until desirous candidates are recommended. Under Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfers) Rules, 1979 appointments are to be made on the recommendation of Departmental Selection Committee or Public Service Commission and not on political consideration but the letter written by respondent No.1 to respondent No. 3 clearly shows that the appointments of the petitioners were not withheld due to some irregularities but on political consideration which fact is also supported by contents of para. No.5 of the summary prepared for the approval of Chief Minister, which is reproduced herein below: "There have been many difficulties in finalizing the recommendations as it was difficult to please and satisfy everyone. There was also the question of allocating posts on the basis of tribal population in a District. I believe that Selection Committee have tried to keep the tribal strength in view while recommending candidates for recruitment. In the meanwhile, the Director-General, Balochistan Levies Force, was told to hold back issuance of appointment orders. This order was communicated to him in pursuance of the orders of the Minister of Home and Tribal Affairs Department."
Similarly worthy Chief Minister -also failed to give reasons for directing to re-conduct test and interviews only to the extent of Chaghi District.
In view of above discussion the instant petition is allowed. The respondent No. 3 is directed that as per recommendation of recruitment committee the order of appointment of successful candidates be issued within one month. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.