JUDGMENT SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- The petitioner was a contender for the post pf Accounts Clerk in the Town Committee, Alipur Chatha. He feels aggrieved of the appointment of respondent No. 5 against the Said post. .The primary ^ground of attack is that according to the advertisement, which appeared in daily "Nawa-e-Waqt" of 4.4.1995, the required qualification for the said post was a diploma in D. Com while the said respondent was a matriculate and did not possess the said diploma. A further grievance is that petitioner was at serial No. 1 of the merit list while respondent No. 5 was at No.112, and, therefore, the appointment of the said respondent (p the exclusion of the petitioner is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a copy pf the merit list filed on the record of this writ petition as Annexure 'B'. Audit objection No. 33 for the year 1995-95 (Annexure D') was also pressed to contend that the appointment of respondent No. 5, as Accounts Clerk was not regular, and could not be justified. It may also be stated that on the basis of this Audit objection the case was .Examined in the Town Committee Alipur Chatha and the Chief officer had recommended that the said respondent should be removed.
3. According to the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, the merit list was not traceable while according to the comments of the Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad, the merit list had been destroyed. He insisted that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was made according to the Government Policy.
4. Learned Addl. Advocate-General submits that the entire basis of the writ petition was the merit list which is not available on the record of the Town Committee and, therefore, no interference was called for. Mr. M.A. Zafar, Advocate, representing respondent No. 5, has contended that the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the-post in question was made on 13.6.T995. He was confirmed on 10.10.1997 and, therefore, the writ petition filed on 10.3.1998 suffers from laches. He also contended that the merit list appended to the writ petition is bogus document and, therefore, on this score alone the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. He next contended that the requirement of Diploma in Commerce was for appointment against a post in BS-11 while the post against which respondent No. 5 was appointed is in BS-7.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the minutes of i.e meeting of i.e District Recruitment Committee, Gujranwala held on 29.5.1995 (Annex: R 5/1) shows that respondent No. 5 was a Matriculate without holding the Diploma of D. Com.
Therefore, i.e said respondent was not eligible for being considered for i.e said post. His appointment is patently illegal and arbitrary. As far as the claim of i.e petitioner for appointment to i.e said post is concerned, this relief cannot, however, be granted to him because a perusal of the record produced by' the Chief Officer of the Town Committee Alipur Chatha shows that the merit list on the record was not signed by any Member of the Recruitment Committee.
6. As far as the contention of the learned counsel of respondent Na. 5 that the writ petition suffers from laches is concerned, it has been explained in para 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner came to know of the irregular and unlawful appointment of respondent No. 5 in January, 1998. The writ petition filed in March, 1998 cannot be said to suffer from laches. Further, recruitment of a person who was not even eligible for being considered eloquently speaks of favouritism and arbitrariness which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. As to the other contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that the writ petition should be- dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has filed a bogus document, suffice it to say that the copy of the merit list appended to the record of this writ petition was duly attested by the Chief Officer Town Committee, Alipur Chatha and it was found to so exist (unsigned by any body) in the record of the Town Committee.
7. The last contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that the D. Com was a prescribed qualification only tor a post in BS-11 is equally without any merit in view of the advertisement which specifically provides this qualification as eligibility thresh-hold for the post of Accounts Clerk. The district Recruitment Committee comprised the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, the Administrator and the Chief Officer of the Town Committee. They acted recklessly by keeping out of consideration that respondent No. 5 was not eligible. The only inference which could be drawn from these facts is that they wanted to favour respondent No. 5.
8. For what has been stated above, the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Accounts Clerk in the Town Committee, Alipur Chatha, is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The post is declared as vacant to be readvertised and filled in, in accordance with law. Respondents No. 1 to 4 are burdened with costs amounting to Rs. 20,0. 00 for which they will be collectively and individually responsible. The Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala is further directed to hold an inquiry as to the loss/destruction of the original merit list, fix responsibility and take appropriate action against those who are found responsible. He will inform the Deputy Registrar of from Court of i.e action taken in i.e matter within two months.