JUDGMENTMALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This constitutional petition, calls in question, the refusal of Punjab Public Service Commission, respondent No.2(hereinafter referred to as the Commission) to recommend the petitioner for appointment as a Clinical Pathologist in the service of respondent No.1.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on the requistion of respondent No.1, the Commission through a public advertisement dated 2nd of July, 1988 invited applicatins for appointment to seven posts of Clinical Pathologists. The candidates, including the petitioner were interviewed by the Commission and on its basis a merit list was drawn up in which the petitioner was placed at No.8. The first seven candidates from the merit list were recommended for appointment by the Commissionto respondent No.1 on 9th of July, 1988. Subsequently, two others posts fell vacant and a requisition was sent by respondent No.1 to the Commission which was advertised these posts by issuing a public notice on 7th of October, 1988.
It appears that out of the seven candidates recommended for appointment, Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad did not avail of the offer of appointment by the due date i.e. 7th of December, 1988 and the offer made to him thus stood cancelled. Respondent No.1, consequently asked the Commission for selection afresh against this post also on 10th of December, 1988(Anncx-B).
In this manner the Commission was asked to recommend candidates for filing up three posts of Clinical Pathologists. On 19th of December, 1988(Anncx-C), the petitioner objected to the fresh selection by representing that he being next on the merit list, was entitled to be recommended as a substitute in place of Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad who had not joined the service. This request was refused which led him to file this constitution petition.
3. In the para wise comments, filed by the respondens, they have taken up the position that the previous merits list ceased to be operative as a requisition had been receiv'd for a fresh selection by the Commission from respondent No.1 and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to be recommended as substitute.
4. Mr. Abid Hussain Minto, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Regulation 30 of the Punjab Public Service Commision Regulation 1987 contended that a merit list once prepared remains valid for a period of one year from the date of its issuance or till the next selection for a similar post. According to the learned counsel neither the period of one year has elapsed nor fresh selection has taken place and as such the petitioner was entitled to be recommended as a substitute for appointment. The learned counsel in this respect submitted that the receipt of requisition for fresh selection cannot be equated with selection itself and therefore the refusal of the respondent to recommend the name of the petitioner was without lawful authority. Rana Muhammad Arshad, the Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that as requisition for new posts had been received by the Commission, the previous merit list ceased to be operative and no right can be claimed by the petitioner on its basis.
5. Two questions which arise for consideration in this constitutional petition are firstly whether the expression "next selection" as used in Regulation 30 means the entire process of selection, starting from the receipt of requisition by the Commission from the department concerned or the actual choosing of candidates only; and secondly whether the department is under any obligation to have the post filled in by a substitute from the same merit list instead of resorting to fresh selection.
6. As regard the first question, it is to be noted word "selection" has not been defined either in the Regulations or the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance 1978. Selection according to Black Law Dictionary 5th Edition, page 1219 means to take by preference from among others; to pick out; to cull.In Ballentis,Time Law Dictionary, selection of jurers, has been stated to mean "the preparation of a list of names to persons to have jury service".
The Punjab Public Service Commission has been constituted under the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978 and is obliged by the Statute to select suitable candidates for appointment on a requisition made by the various government departments. In order to regulate the procedure for the appointment, the Commission acting under Section 10(2) of the Ordinance, has framed the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulation 1987 which prescribes the details as to the manner in which the selection is to take place and the various steps which are required to be taken before the actual choice of candidate is made. This process cannot be completed in a day.
The various formalities prescribed by the Regulation like receipt of requisition, issuance of public notices, advertisement of posts, receipt of applications from the candidates, and holding of interviews or the tests, are all steps in the process of selection of the candidates while interpreting the Regulation, the object for which these have been framed, cannot be lost sight of. It is, therefore, difficuIt to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the expression "next selection" should be read in a narrow sense so as to confine it to the actual picking up of the candidates and all other steps leading to it should be ignored. This interpretation would be against the object of the Regulation itself. In two decided cases of this court namely (Muhammad Nazir Hakim v. Bukhtiar Said Muhammad & another (PLD 1962 Lahore 421) and Irfan Akhtar Shah v. Election Tribunal District Shahour at Sargodha and other (PLD 1961 Lahore 189) the word "election" was interpreted to be sufficiently wide to include all steps leading to actual poll. It was further held that when a law requires that certain steps must be taken before the completion of the process, it cannot be said that those steps are not a part of the process itself. The observations are fully applicable to the present case while interpreting the word "selection" for the object of both "election" and "selection" is the same, namely picking up or choosing suitable persons. In my view, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted.
7. Reverting to the second question, it will be seen that there is no right vesting in any candidate, for being recommended as a substitute either under the Ordinance or the Regulations. Regulation 27 which deals with these aspect of the matter provides that if a recommended candidate fails to join, a substitute can be provided from the same merit list, if so requested by the department. A discretion thus vests in department either to make a request for providing a substitute from the same merit list or have the vacancy filled by a fresh selection. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the Regulation becomes applicable once a request is made to the Public Service Commission, Punjab, for providing a fresh name for appointment. According to the learned counsel it is not necessary that the request envisaged by Regulation 27 must be a request to provide a substitute from the same merit list. I regret my inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel. The word "so" appearing as a prefix to the words "requested by the department" leaves no room for doubt that the request contemplated by the regulation is that which is mentioned in its opening part namely the request to provide a substitute from the same merit list. It cannot be held, that though a request is made by the department, for fresh selection yet, the Public Service Commission, Punjab, can provide the substitute from the previous merits list.
8. The learned counsel has, however, relied upon Regulations 28 & 29 and contended that under these Regulations, there is no option with the department or with the Public Service Commission, but to make a recommendation out of the merit list already prepared Regulation 27 to 29 deal with the same subject and appear under the same heading namely Substitution of Recommendations.These Regulations are to be read together and not in isolation of each other.
Regulations 28 & 29, deal with the question of zonal allocation among the candidates and come into play only when a request has been made under Regulation 27 by the department to provide a substitute from the same merit list. In the absence of any such request, Regulations 28 & 29 are not attracted at all. It is only when the process has been set in motion through a request made under Regulation 27 that a question arises as to how and under what zonal basis is provided by Regulations 28 & 29.
It is well settled that while interpreting the provisions of a statutory instrument recourse should be had to be provisions of the instrument as a whole and not to any part thereof. (Begum Shamsunnerhar v. The Speaker. East Pakistan Provincial Assembly. Dacca & another (PLD 1965 S.C.
120 refers). The heading under which these Regulations fall also provide a useful guide for interpreting the same though it is not conclusive.(See Bindra's Interpretation of Statute (7th Edition page 54), and Maxwell on the Interpretation Statute (12th Edition page 11). Viewed, from this angle it bcomes clear that a substitue can only be provided from the merit list if a request to that effect is made by the department and not otherwise.
9. In the present case, admittedly no such request was made by the department for supplying any substitute from the same merit list. On the other hand, the department asked for fresh selection for the three posts i.e. For two additional post and one which had fallen vacant on account of failure of Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad to join the service.This being the position the petitioner had no right to insist that his name should be recommended as a substitute for appointment from the same merit list.
For the foregoing reasons, this constitutional petition has no force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.