SYED AAL-E-AHMAD, MEMBER-I. - This judgment shall govern Appeals Nos. 819 to 853, 1078, 401 to 404, 433 to 444, 1086, 31 to 47, 64, 150, 153, 173, 311 to 313, 1128 to 1131, 1556, 1191 to 1994, 1119, 561, 691 to 699, 518, 519, 569 to 574, 813, 543 to 558, 701, 1230, 2833, 3556, 2831, 3172, 3176, 1148, 1883, 1157, 1158, 3441 to 3448, 3450 to 3452 (of District Faisalabad), 1034 to 1039, 1827, 1976, 2213 to 2218 2701 to 2719, 2723 to 2739, 2326 to 2332, 2371 to 2381, 2383 to 2393, 2541, 2542, 2412 to 2420, 2423 to 2459, 2464 to 2486, 2275 to 2277, 2628 to 2630, 2016, 2018, 2721, 2722, 2221, 2618, 2626, 2284 to 2286, 3195 (of District Narowal), 366 to 369, 604, 1799 of 1997, 1087/93, 39/94 (of District Gujranwala), 1336 to 1345, 1379, 1389, 1390, 1448 to 1450, 1492 to 1494, 1427, 1409 to 1417, 1535 to 1539, 1671, 1672 and 1599 of 1998, 799 and 800 of 1997 (of District Sheikhupura), as identical question of facts and law are involved in-all of them.
2. The brief facts of these cases are that the appellants were appointed as PTC/OT/AT/CT/SV by the DDEOs of the concerned Tehsils/Districts on the recommendations of the respective Districts Recruitment Committees between the years, 1992 to 1996:
3. In pursuance of the advertisement published in the national dailies inviting applications for appointment to the posts of PTC/OT/AT/CT/SV, the appellants submitted their applications to the respective DDEOs. They were accordingly interviewed by the District Recruitment Committees and were finally appointed by the DDEOs during the year, 1992 to 19%. It may be worthwhile to reproduce the constitution of District Recruitment Committee notified vide S&GAD's notification dated 8th September, 1995:-
(a) Deputy Commissioner. Chairman
(b) Appointing Authority concerned. Member
(c) Two officers to be nominated by the Admn. Concerned. Member
(d) Addl. Commissioner (Cord) Member
4. Subsequently, the appointment orders of the appellants were cancelled on the grounds that appointment orders were without merit and without approval of the District Recruitment/Selection Committee. Their appeals were also rejected by the appellate authority.
5. The main contention of the appellants was that they were appointed by the competent authority and they had been serving the Department for a couple of years before their services were terminated without any show-cause/enquiry, etc. It was contended that their appointments were regular, against substantive posts and could only be terminated under the provisions of E&D Rules.
The appellants relied on the principle of 'Audi Alteram Partem' and contended that impugned orders terminating their services be withdrawn and they be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
6. The respondent Department in their written statements contended that the appointments of the appellants were made without observing the Recruitment Policy and without merit. It was also contended that the appointment letters were issued without the approval of the District Recruitment/Selection Committees. It was further contended that the appointments were secured on the basis of political influence exercised by the appellants through the political personalities of the area and in most of the cases, the appointment orders were also fake and bogus.
7. We have heard the learned counsel of the appellants, the District Attorney and carefully examined the record of the cases.
8. The contention of the appellants that they secured appointment through a normal procedure on the basis of recommendations of the District Recruitment Committees is not born out from record.
9. It was observed that the appointment orders secured by the appellants were procured by adopting un-ethical methods. In most of the cases, the posts were never advertised and interviews were also not held. Similarly, no general merit list was prepared. The general modus operandi in the cases was that the applications were received by political personalities of the area (MPAs/MNAs/Advisors, etc.) and appointing authorities (DDEOs) were directed to issue appointment orders. It has also come on record that a specified number of PTC/OT/AT/CT/SV posts were allocated to each MPA/MNA who collected the applications of the candidates and delivered die appointment letters after obtaining them from the appointing authorities. It has also come on record that the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned Districts exerted undue pressure/influence on the appointing authorities to issue appointment letters. In brief, the appointment letters were distributed as a bounty through the political leaders of the area without observing any procedure/merit or the selection procedure as prescribed by the Government.
10. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a number of cases that public. Service is a trust and the Government functionaries should discharge their duties in a transparent manner. It is in pursuance of this Policy of the Government that an elaborate procedure for the selection of candidates has been prescribed and District Recruitment/Selection Committees were constituted to over-see the observance of this procedure. The relevant authorities are reported as 1993 SCM R 1287 and 1996 SGMR 1349. In these judgments the Honourable Supreme Court took exception to the practice of getting employment on the recommendations/directives of MPAs/MNAs, Ministers and the Chief Minister. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the appointments should he made in the prescribed procedure by publicising the posts in the area where the vacancies fall and after scrutinising the applications on the basis of merit determined by the Government tor each post.
11. In view of these clear directions and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the appointments of the appellants do not fulfil the conditions prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. We, therefore, proceed to dismiss the appeals. However, before parting with the appeals, we find that the appellants have spent a good deal of time in pursuing their appeals. We, therefore, direct that the applications of the appellants for appointment to the various posts discussed above, shall be deemed to be pending with the respective appointing authorities. They will however Be at liberty to i.e fresh applications for the convenience of the appointing authorities. The appointing authorities shall comply with the procedure of appointment on the basis of Recruitment Policy of the Government and merit as laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above.
The whole process of appointment will be completed within a period of 90 days. It may be clarified that the appellants shall compete with all others who may care to apply for appointment to the posts notified by the appointing authorities concerned.