' In response to an advertisement published by the respondents inviting applications for appointment to the post of a process-server, the petitioner applied for the said appointment. He was issued a call letter and appeared for test and interview. There were in all five posts of the process-servers for which 7 persons were selected, including the petitioner. Five of the selected persons were appointed while a waiting list of two persons headed by the petitioner was made.
Now the term was that in case any of the five persons actually appointed were to leave in any manner or were not to join at all, then the first man in the waiting list was to be appointed in his stead. The case of the petitioner is that out of the said five appointed persons one Shaukat Ali son of Nazir Ahmad resigned from the post as he had been appointed in the Education Department vide letter, dated 13-6-1995. The petitioner, requested the respondents for his appointment but it was refused. The petitioner consequently, filed Writ Petition No,1824 of 1997 in this Court. The matter came up before my learned brother Ch. Ijaz Ahamd, J. Who decided the same vide judgment, dated 10-12-1997 with the following observations:-- "7. In parawise comments respondents stated in reply of para.3 that Shaukat Ali Process-server served about one year in this department and resigned. It is pertinent to mention here that according to the petitioner Shaukat Ali left the post of process-server before 6 months i,e, from 21- 5-1995 to 2-9-1995. Whereas, respondents stated in their parawise comments that Shaukat Ali remained as Process Server for one year, therefore, this brings the case in the area of factual .Controversy, which cannot be resolved without recording evidence. In case Shaukat Ali has left the services of the respondents within 3 months and 12 days then it is vested right of the petitioner to be appointed against the vacant post being at Serial No,1 on the waiting list and in case, the stand taken by the respondents is accepted then the petitioner has no vested right to be appointed without readvertisement and due process.
8. Let a copy of this writ petition alongwith all the documents be sent to respondent No,2, who shall look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law without influenced by the above mentioned observations."
' The said official, however, despite the said directions failed to decide the matter and, thus, the petitioner was constrained to again approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
2. The comments were called for and have been filed by. The Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment. According to the comments the said Shaukat Ali resigned on 29-1-1996 and the resignation was accepted on-7-4-1996. It has further been asserted in the comments that the said Shaukat Ali has "served" the Department for 8 months and 9 days. According to the said official the petitioner could have been appointed only in case the said Shaukat Ali had not joined the Department within 30 days of the appointment letter, dated 30-4-1995. In view of the documents appended with the writ petition showing without any shadow of doubt the employment of said Shauakt Ali with the Education Department the said facts stated in the comments do not ring to be true. An Assistant Director who was present on 16-4-1999 in response to my query as to how was the said Shaukat Ali carrying on employment in two Departments and what the Department has done now when it was known that Shaukat Ali was in fact employed in the Education Department at the same time. The reply of the Officer was that Shaukat Ali had continuously been applying leave on medical grounds and that no action has been taken against him despite the fact that the Department is now aware that he had in fact been serving in the Education Department of the Provincial Government. The writ petition was accordingly admitted to regular hearing. The hearing commenced on 9-12-1999 and was concluded today.
3. I find that the comments filed by the respondents and their approach to the matter is clearly violative of the judgment, dated 10-12-1997 of this Court in Writ Petition No,1824 of 1997. The factual controversy involved had been clearly defined by my learned brother in the said judgment. The respondent officials have side tracked the whole issue. This out of the way accommodation for the said Shaukat Ali despite his conduct which borders on fraud and on the other hand deliberate pushing under the carpet of the genuine plea of the petitioner on their part of the Department cannot be countenanced. The petitioner being a citizen of this State is entitled to be dealt with in accordance with law and equity. Confronted with this situation the learned Law Officer for the respondents pleaded ban on employment. The said plea does not hold much water. There is no plea of placing ban on employment when a post is available. In the present case the post is very much there and is lying vacant and is to be filled by giving first opportunity to the petitioner who is admittedly first in the waiting list of the selected candidates for the said post. There is sufficient material on record to show that the said Shaukat Ali was appointed as a teacher in a School of the Provincial Government on 13-6-1995, while he joined the duties on 21-5-1995. This period comes to less than one month and is certainly within the period of three months and 12 days prescribed in the judgment, dated 10-12-1997. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Process-Server for which he is at No,1 in the waiting list prepared in respect of the selected candidates by the Departmental Selection Committee in its meeting held on 13-4-1998 (Annexure B to the writ petition). This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.