1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--This Constitutional Petition is filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in which the case of the petitioner is that he has been appointed as Excise and Taxation Inspector in Grade 11 vide office order dated 14-11-1988 passed by respondent No,2, Director General Excise and Taxation Department, Government of Sind. Thereafter he reported for duty and was directed to proceed on training with Excise and Taxation Officer, Shikarpur which he did. After the training petitioner was kept on false hopes but was not given posting order when in fact there were four other candidates who were appointed as Inspector with him in the same grade and they were absorbed. Petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed to act upon office order of appointment of petitioner and further issue his posting order.
2. ' Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are Director General, Excise and Taxation Department and Director Excise and Taxation Department, Sukkur Division respectively were directed by this Court to file parawise. Comments in writing within one week vide order dated 15-5-1989. On two occasions at the request of learned AA.-G. Time was extended for filing of parawise comments and ultimately parawise comments were filed by respondent No,3 only, who is Director Excise and Taxation Sukkur Division. Respondent No,2 Director General Excise and Taxation Department who has issued letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner has not cared to file the comments, which shows that perhaps he does not dispute contents of memorandum of petition with averments made therein.
3. ' Amazingly in the comments contradictory stands have been taken to rebut the claim of the petitioner. In paragraph 3 appointment of petitioner is disowned and it is stated that letter of offer for appointment on ad-hoc basis was proposed to be issued which was signed on 14-11-1988 but having discovered that there was no vacancy, the said letter was neither issued nor despatched to the petitioner. In the same paragraph another stand taken is that in the order of appointment dated 14-11-1988 it is mentioned that if the offer is accepted then the petitioner is required to report for duty within 7 days from the receipt of offer failing which the offer would be treated as cancelled.
4. And in the instant case order dated 14-11-1988 stood automatically withdrawn after expiry of period of 7 days. It is not understandable how respondent No,3 can take benefit of noncompliance by the petitioner on account of non-fulfilment of the condition within seven days when the letter was never issued as is claimed by respondent. Now so far the letter of appointment is concerned copy of this letter is produced by the petitioner which shows that copy was sent to the petitioner whose name is mentioned at serial number 5 and another copy was sent to respondent No,3 whose designation is mentioned at serial number 3. Not only that but another letter is produced by the petitioner which is dated 7th December, 1988 addressed by respondent No,2 to Excise and Taxation Officer, Shikarpur with copy to the petitioner in which it is mentioned that petitioner has resumed duty on 3-12-1988 and is directed to report to the Excise and Taxation Officer, Shikarpur to provide him necessary training for recovery of taxes duties according 1:o the arrangement mentioned therein. Petitioner has also produced copy of letter showing that he had reported for training on 7- 12-1988. Petitioner has produced office copy of one other letter dated 7-12-1989 signed by respondent No, 3 showing that petitioner had reported for duty in the afternoon of 7-12-1989.
5. ' Another different stand taken in the comments is that petitioner appears to have managed obtaining 'copy endorsed to the Secretary to Chief Minister and he has made interpolations and produced copies before the Medical Superintendent as well as respondent No,3 and respondent No,3 bona fide acted upon it and directed him to undergo training at Shikarpur. Here what is not understandable is the fact that in the comments in paragraph 3 assertion is made that letter of appointment was signed and after that it was discovered that there was no vacancy. Now if this was the position then where was the need of sending a copy to the Secretary to the Chief Minister from where it is alleged that petitioner obtained a copy and took further steps as are alleged in paragraph 4. Secondly why respondent No,3 has not filed an affidavit in this Court in support of the claim that he was duped by the petitioner and he directed petitioner mistakenly in good faith to undergo training at Shikarpur. Thirdly we had asked learned AA.-G. To show us the record of respondents and particularly the office copy of the order of appointment of the petitioner and in compliance the file was placed before us in which we saw office copy of the letter of appointment dated 14-11-1988. This letter is signed by respondent No,2 who is Director-General, Excise and Taxation Sindh. At the bottom of the order it appears that the copies were intended to be sent to five different persons and at item number 5 is the name of the petitioner. In these item numbers there is white fluid used for the obvious purpose of erasing tick marking and on top of that white fluid there is tick marking against serial number 3 against which is written Director Excise and Taxation, Sukkur. At serial number 1 is Accountant-General, at serial number 2 is Secretary to the Chief Miniser Sindh, at serial number 3 is Director Excise and Taxation and at serial number 4 is Medical Superintendent/Civil Surgeon, Services Hospital Sukkur. It is further mentioned that he is requested to examine petitioner and furnish report to the Director Excise and Taxation Sukkur and lastly at item number 5 is the name of the petitioner. This office copy shows interpolations which appears to have been made in the office of respondent No,2. Learned AA.-G. Was unable to explain the erasing in serial numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 and tick mark against serial number 3 on top of white fluid. No attempt was made to explain to us as to why this was done. Now if the claim of respondent No,3 is admitted that after letter of appointment was signed by respondent No,2 it was discovered that there was no vacancy as is claimed in paragraph 3 of the comments, then what was the need of retaining the office copy of that order on the record and making attempt to send the copies thereof to other functionaries and persons.
6. ' Further in the comments in paragraph 5 claim of the petitioner to have reported for duty is admitted. In paragraph 7 it is admitted that other candidates were appointed earlier against existing vacancies.
7. ' In paragraph 8 of the comments it is stated that petitioner completed his training for the period from 7-12-1988 to 4-1-1989 and thereafter he was required to get further training at Nawabshah vide office letter No, Estt/70 dated 4-1-1989. In the meantime it came to the notice of respondent No, 3 that appointment of petitioner was not genuine. As such Excise and Taxation Officer, Nawabshah was directed on telephone followed by D.E.T. Sukkur letter No, Estt/148 dated 8-1-1989 to stop training of the petitioner till further orders and petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No,3 alongwith his original appointment order immediately. Accordingly Excise and Taxation Officer, Nawabshah vide his letter No, Estt/5124 dated 8-1-1989 directed the petitioner to act accordingly. The petitioner instead of complying with the said instructions to produce original orders absconded from training with effect from 8-1-1989. None of the documents mentioned in paragraph 8 of the comments as stated above has been produced before us. If petitioner was not appointed then where arose the question of his absconsion. On the contrary admissions made in paragraph 8 of the comments clearly show that appointment of petitioner was accepted and acted upon and he received training and remained at various places and then doubt was felt with regard to letter of his appointment and he was called upon to produce his letter of appointment in original. This doubt could have been resolved by making reference to the record of respondents No,2 and 3 without asking the petitioner to produce his original letter of appointment.
8. ' In paragraph 9 again assertion is made that the petitioner was required to undergo further training upto 28-2-1989 but he preferred to abscond with effect from 8-1-1989. Now if some employee in the service of the Government absconds then normal procedure is that notice is published in the newspaper notifying him to resume the duty failing which serious action would be taken which may result in his termination of service and/or any other penalty but no such steps were taken. In parapraph 12 again stand is taken that petitioner was not given any appointment and he does not enjoy status of civil servant.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that immediately after the appointment was made there were elections and the Government was changed after which respondents also changed their mind and refused to acknowledge the fact that petitioner was appointed, as such they deprived the petitioner of posting order. It was further submitted by him that the post of the Inspector is in Grade 11 for which it was not necessary to go through Public Service Commission. He has drawn our attention to Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 in which rule 4 covers appointments for Grades 9 to 11 to be made by head of Office if in Grade 19 or above, otherwise Regional Head or if there is no Regional Head, Head of attached department. It was submitted by learned A.A.-G. That in the instant case appointment purports to have been made by Director General, Excise and Taxation and to that post can be appointed an Officer of Grade 19 or above. There also does not appear any other procedural flaw in the appointment in question.
10. ' For the facts and reasons mentioned above we are of the considered view that the petitioner was validly appointed as Excise and Taxation Inspector in Grade 11 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment dated 14-11-1988 and from respondents Nos.2 and 3 whoever is empowered to do so is directed to issue posting order to the petitioner. In the result petition is allowed.
11. ' Above are the detailed reasons in support of short order passed by us on 13-11-1989 whereby we had allowed the petition for reasons to be recorded later.