1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---The petitioners, who are practising advocates, applied for appointment against the vacancies of Additional District and Sessions, Judges in the Province of Punjab, in response to an advertisement which appeared in the Press on 25-2-1991. They claim that they passed the written test held by the authorities for selection against the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges and were also called for interviews, on different dates. It is alleged that while they were waiting for the result of their interview, they came across another advertisement published in newspapers on 20-9-1992, issued by the Registrar of Lahore High Court, inviting applications for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges against the vacancies existing in the Province of Punjab. Soon thereafter the Government of Punjab appointed 16 Additional District and Sessions Judges, in Punjab vide notification, dated 18-10-1992. The appointments of these 16 Additional District and Sessions Judges, were challenged in 18 separate writ petitions filed by the petitioners and others before the Lahore High Court. In the First instance, the High Court called for parawise comments from the Registrar of High Court, in those petitions and thereafter, admitted them to regular hearing. The petitions were finally disposed of by a Bench of the Lahore High Court consisting of 5 learned Judges, by judgment, dated 30-4-1995. The contentions raised by the petitioners before the High Court in support of their writ petitions were recorded in the judgment, dated 30-4-1995 as follows:-- "The pleas taken in all the cases fall in three categories. Firstly, a writ/order in the nature of mandamus is prayed for with a view to declaration of the result of the test and interview taken and attended by the petitioners, pursuant to the advertisement, dated 25-2-1991. Secondly, it is prayed that the manner for appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges having been provided in the advertisement as also in the subsequent notices received by the writ petitioners for appearing before the Interview Committee, the petitioners are entitled to be treated accordingly and any lapse on the part of the respondent authorities to do otherwise, will not have any sanction in law. Lastly, the petitioners having qualified in the written test and having also appeared before the Committee, their induction into service against available posts then, should have been made and the subsequent advertisement appearing in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt, dated 19-9-1992, is liable to be quashed with the result that case of all the petitioners merits consideration along with respondents Nos.3 to 18. According to Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate there were 50 seats of Additional District and Sessions Judges on the eve of the issuance of advertisement, dated 19-9- 1992 and as the appointment of respondents Nos.3 to 18 has a direct nexus with 16 posts out of said fifty vacancies, all the writ petitioners, are entitled for consideration against the remaining 34 seats."
2. ' The above contentions of the petitioners were, however, not decided on merit as the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were disposed of on the basis of the statement of the Advocate-General of Punjab made before the High Court as follows:-- "Before the arguments could proceed any further, Mr. Abdul Sattar Najam, learned Advocate- General, Punjab, stated that the Provincial Government is willing to fill the remaining vacancies on merit on the basis of selection already carried out by this Court. The statement made by the learned Advocate-General is, of course, acceptable to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners.
3. Accordingly, we dispose of these writ petitions with the observations that as undertaken before us by the learned Advocate-General the remaining vacancies of the Additional District and Sessions Judges shall be filled in on merits on the basis of the examination and interview already held by this Court and no fresh selection shall be carried out pursuant to the notice published in Daily Nawa-e-Waqt, dated 19-9-1992."
4. ' The above order of the High Court, dated 30-4-1995 was challenged before this Court by some of the serving Additional District and Sessions Judges in C.P.L.A. No.943-L of 1995 which was disposed of as follows:- "Learned Advocate-General, Punjab supported by Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate states that in making appointments to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge, the quota reserved for P.C.S. Officers will not be made less. The petition is disposed of in view of the above statement."
5. ' The petitioners claim that thereafter they approached the Registrar of High Court for implementation of the order of High Court, dated 30-4-1995 but the same was not implemented.
6. Consequently, they filed contempt proceedings which were dismissed on 23-6-1996. The petitioners were finally informed through letter of the Registrar of High Court, dated 19-10-1996 that they could not be selected as they failed in the examination.
7. ' In the above-stated background, the petitioners approached this Court through direct petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution which were admitted as follows:-- "The grievance in this petition filed directly under section 184(3) of the Constitution is that the petitioners had qualified both the written test as well as the viva voce held by the Lahore High Court, Lahore but while respondents Nos.3 to 18 were appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges the petitioners were ignored. In the writ petition which was filed by the petitioners in the High Court, a statement was made on behalf of the Government by the then Advocate-General, Punjab that the Provincial Government is willing to fill the vacancies on merits on basis of selection already carried out by the High Court. It appears that subsequently the High Court declined to appoint the petitioners as Additional District and Sessions Judges on the ground that they had failed in the written examination. This stand of the High Court runs contrary to the comments filed in W.P. No.982 of 1993 before the High Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are not likely to get any relief in the High Court as the order in this case has been passed by Committee of 5 Honourable Judges. The contention raised in this petition requires considerations and we, accordingly, admit this petition for regular hearing before a Bench of at least 5 Honourable Judges of this Court.
8. ' There is an application for interim relief for staying further appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges. We are not inclined to entertain this application which is dismissed.
9. ' C.M.A. On behalf of Raja Shaheel Ahmed, Advocate, for his impleadment as party/ as petitioner in the Constitution petition is allowed subject to all just exceptions."
10. ' We have heard Mr. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, Mr. Malik Azam Rasool, Advocate Supreme Court, for respondent No.2 (Registrar, Lahore High Court) and Mr. Tariq Khokhar, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab.
11. ' The main contention of Mr. Raja Muhammad Anwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions is, that in terms of the order of the High Court, dated 30-4-1995, in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed against the vacancies of Additional District and Sessions Judges in the Province of Punjab. The learned counsel very vehemently argued that the stand taken on behalf of the High Court now, in these proceedings, is an afterthought as no such stand was taken before the Bench of the High Court in the course of the proceedings of writ petitions there. The learned counsel went to the extent of suggesting that the record of interviews produced before this Court appears to have been made subsequently in order to defeat the claims of the petitioners.
12. ' The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 (Registrar of Lahore High Court) on the other hand, contended that order of the High Court Bench, dated 30-4-1995 in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners nowhere accepted the claim of the petitioners for appointment against the remaining vacancies of Additional District and Sessions Judges in Punjab. The order, dated 30-4- 1995, it is contended, only provided that the remaining vacancies of the Additional District and Sessions Judges in Punjab were to be filled in on merit on the basis of the examination and interview already held by the High Court. It is, accordingly, contended that as the petitioners failed in he viva voce test, they could not be appointed against the vacancies of Additional District and Sessions Judges. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 produced before us the original record of the interviews of the petitioners in support of his contention that the petitioners failed in the interview before the Board. The learned Additional Advocate-General supported the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2.
13. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and going through original record, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these petitions.
14. ' The learned counsel for respondent No.2 rightly contended that there was no direction in the order of the High Court, dated 30-4-1995, disposing of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, that petitioners were to be appointed against the existing vacancies of Additional District and Sessions Judges. We have already reproduced above, the operative part of the order of High Court, dated 30-4-1995, which clearly provided that selections against the remaining vacancies of Additional District and Sessions Judges in the Province of Punjab were to be made on merits on the basis of the result of examination and interview conducted by the High Court. It is no doubt true that petitioners secured very good marks in the written test but they all failed in the interview as they could not secure the qualifying marks. This phenomenon may appear to be unusual but it is fully supported by the original record of the interviews which is signed by three Hon'ble senior Judges of the Lahore High Court. We are not at all impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the pleas raised on behalf of the High Court that the petitioners failed in the interview, is an afterthought or contrary to the stand taken before the High Court during the proceedings of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. In fact the order, dated 30-4-1995 passed by the High Court shows that only Government of Punjab (respondent No.1) was represented before the Court and the case was disposed of on the basis of the statement of Advocate-General, Punjab. Respondent No.2, therefore, had no opportunity to place the record of interviews before the Bench of High Court in course of the proceedings of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. As according to the original record produced before us, the petitioners failed to secure qualifying marks in the interview, they were rightly declined appointments as Additional District and Sessions Judges in Punjab.
15. ' There is no merit in the above petitions which are dismissed accordingly.