This judgment shall decide (1) W.P.No.11848/93 (Syed Aftab Mehdi v. Secretary-General, Establishment Division and another), (2) W.P. No.11884/93 (Nadeem Ahmad v. Secretary-General, Establishment and others), (3) W.P.No.11885/93 (M.Abid Rana v. Secretary-General Establishment), (4), W.P.No.11886/93 (Aamer Nisar v. Secretary-General, Establishment etc), (5) W.P.No.11887/93 (Saqib Fawad Amjid v. Secretary---General, Establishment), (6) W.P.No.11888/93 (Khurshid Ahmad v. Secretary-General, Establishment), (7) W.P.No.11889/93 (Naveed Ahmad v. Secretary---General, Establishment),(8) W.P.No.11890/93 (M.Azam Zafar v. Secretary---General, Establishment), (9)
W.P.No.11891/93 (Shamsher Iqbal v. Secretary---General, Establishment) and (10) W:P.No.14098 of 1993 (M.Shafique Akhtar v. Secretary-General, Establishment) together as common question of law is involved in all of them.
2. The petitioners are the qualified Engineers. An advertisement was given in the Press for recruitment of Engineers in the Pakistan Railways and P.W.D. as per the requirement of the law. The petitioners fulfilled all the requisite conditions and as such were allowed to sit in the competitive written test having been held by the Federal Public Service Commission in the year 1992. Out of 708 candidates who came out to compete, the petitioners alone were found fit by the Commission and as such were declared successful for their appointment against vacant posts in the Departments concerned. The recommendations of the Commission were not, however, attended to and as such the petitioners brought their grievance to the notice of the Prime Minister of Pakistan who, in turn, interfered and ordered on 24-8-1993 that the petitioners would be accommodated by giving them the jobs vide Annexure `A'. The grievance of the petitioners is that the orders of the Prime Minister have not so far been complied with. '
3. On 4th of October 1993, a direction was issued to the learned counsel for the parties to appear fully prepared to address arguments.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is no alternative in law with the respondents but to carry out the valid and lawful orders of Prime Minister. On instructions, Mr. Aftab Iqbal Chaudhry, learned Deputy Attorney-General, states that effective steps have been taken to implement the decision of the learned Supreme Court given in the human rights Case No.104 of 1992 so that the employment policy of the Government is brought in confirmity with the provisions of Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He discloses that the suitable amendments in the relevant laws/rules shall also be made. He maintains that the cases of the petitioners shall be dealt with suitably. Learned Law Officer and Mr. Fazal-ur---Rehman, a representative of the respondents do concede that the petitioners have the required qualifications for obtaining the jobs in dispute. Mr. Sadiq Ali Anjum, Assistant Director of Federal Public Service Commission has stated that the petitioners are the recommendees of the Commission. A comprehensive statement of the learned Law Officer, in my view, would be construed to give support to the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the redress of their grievance. His hand-written statement is available on the record in support of the case of the petitioners. I, therefore, opine that the above controversy was finally resolved by the order of the Prime Minister by giving full relief to the petitioners. The said order is, accordingly, held to be final qua the parties and as such would hold the field for all intents and purposes. The validity of the order was not challenged by the learned Law Officer and the representatives of the respondents as mentioned above.' This being so, the order of the Prime Minister on the face of it deserved to be complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit. In such a situation, the respondents would be asked to do what they are required to do to meet the ends of justice. The fact remains that there was no refusal on the part of the respondents to accommodate the petitioners by giving them the employment.
Nevertheless, an inordinate delay on their part in finalizing the case of the petitioners would amount to refusal to do their duty in this behalf. In the circumstances of the case, in order to meet the ends of justice, a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus shall issue to the respondents to comply with the order of the Prime Minister within next three months without fail.
With the above observations, these petitions succeed and are allowed with no order as to costs.