' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--The petitioner after obtaining the Bachelor of Pharmacy degree from the Sindh University, getting herself registered as pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act and having worked as such applied for the post of Drug Inspector advertised by the respondent No,2 in the newspaper appearing on April 5, 1998. According to the petitioner, she fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility and was called for interview on 23-11-1998. Seventeen other candidates were also interviewed and eventually the petitioner was recommended for the aforesaid post as is evident from a letter, dated 10-12-1998, issued by the Secretary of the respondent No,2 stating that the respondent Commission had found the petitioner fit and suitable for the aforesaid post of Drug Inspector and recommended her name for appointment. The above fact was also published in news papers on account of press release issued by the respondent No,2 itself.
2. The above information was also communicated to the petitioner vide letter, dated 15-12-1998.
Nevertheless, petitioner did not receive any appointment letter from the respondent No,1 pursuant to the above recommendation and also addressed an application, dated 3-3-1999, to the Governor of Sindh. However, having no redress she has moved this Court.
3. We had directed pre-admission notices and after having received comments from the respondent No,2, the matter was fixed for regular hearing. No comments, however, have been filed on behalf of the respondent i.e' Government of Sindh and the learned A.A.G. Frankly states that though he has been addressing several letters to the Secretary, Health Department, no-body on the latter's behalf has cared to respond. In the circumstances, we are constrained to hear the matter on merits, assuming that the respondent No,1 does not have a reply to the petitioner's contention.
4. The respondent No,2 in their parawise comments have not controverted the basic facts alleged by the petitioner. It is, however, contended that the respondent No,2 is Supreme Recruitment Agency of the Province and having detected some defects in the recommendation recalled the petitioner's case for verification and further consideration. It was avered that after proper verification suitable action according to rules would be taken.
5. Mr. Kamaluddin learned counsel for the petitioner basically argued that the recommendation of the respondent No,2 had attained finality after the letter recommending her had been communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner had acquired a right to be appointed against the post of the Drug Inspector unless she was found disentitled for good and proper reason. He inter alia placed reliance on Muhammad Farooque v Province of Sindh (1986 CLC 1408) and in the same context he relied upon Manthar Ali Jatoi v. Government of Sindh (1988 PLC (C.S) 344) and an unreported judgment in Azizullah Memon v. Government of Sindh (C.P. No,D-171/89).
6. The above judgments clearly indicate that when posts, under statutory rules, are required to be filled on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, the advice of the commission confers a vested right upon the nominated candidate. Moreover, even if the commission be authorized to recall its advice, such authority can only be exercised for a valid reason. Respondent No,2 has not been able to assign any reason or point out any defect in its original recommendation so as to entitle it to review the same. Similarly, the respondent No,1 has not botherd to explain why the recommendations of the respondent No,2 which indeed has created a legitimate expectation to be appointed has not been honoured.
7. In view of the above, we would allow the petition by restraining the respondent No,2 from reconsidering its recommendation and directing the respondent No,1 to appoint the petitioner as Drug Inspector.