' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.---This appeal with the leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court passed on 1-2-2001 whereby a direction was issued to Education Department that respondents on whose writ petitions a relief was initially allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated 14-7-2000 are entitled to be considered first if they find place in the list of successful candidates prepared by the Public Service Commission.
2. The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal briefly stated are that requisition of various vacant posts for appointment was sent to Public Service Commission by the Education Department. All these Posts were advertised by the Public Service Commission vide advertisement No,2 of 1998. Various candidates who were eligible to contest for their induction in service applied and later on appeared in test and interview which was conducted by the Public Service Commission. The contesting respondents herein later on filed writ petitions in the High Court in which they claimed that the Education Department has deliberately withheld certain vacancies in order to accommodate persons of their choice against these vacancies. According to them this practice was highly objectionable. These respondents had further claimed that they being duly qualified were entitled to be accommodated against withheld vacant posts. These writ petitions were allowed by the learned Judge vide judgment dated 14-7-2000 and following relief was allowed:- ' Following the above precedent, it is directed that Public Service Commission shall send the result of the test held by it for all the disciplines of the posts of Education Department in consequence of advertisement No, 2 of 1998 to the Government, who shall consider and appoint successful candidates against the posts which were available at the time when above advertisement was made by the Public Service Commission in accordance with the rules regulating the quota system.
As for the Lecturers English are concerned, the successful 3rd divisioner shall be considered for appointment if the successful 2nd divisioners stand appointed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.
' Advertisement No, 1 of 1999 shall be amended after obtaining fresh requisition from the department for the posts which are created or fell vacant after Advertisement No: 2 of 1998.
' The direction for sending the result of successful candidates shall be carried into effect by the.
Chairman Public Service Commission and the process of working out the available posts for appointment in accordance with the rules of quota by the Secretary Education Department without any further delay. Both shall be informed accordingly."
3. The judgment of the High Court was assailed before the Supreme Court by the present appellants through a petition for leave to appeal which was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court vide his order dated 27-9-2000. After the decision of this Court the Public Service Commission furnished the result of all disciplines of the posts of the Education Department in consequence of Advertisement No, 2 of 1998 to the Government by amending Advertisement No, 1 of 1999.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the newly-created posts of Education Package were also sent to the Government for making appointments, out of list of successful candidates compiled by Public Service Commission in accordance with the direction of the Court.
The Government has inducted in service some 200 successful candidates keeping in view the merit and quota.
5. The respondents after sometime moved separate applications before the High Court seeking contempt proceedings against the official of the Education Department and for the implementation of the judgment of the High Court. The High Court vide Judgment under challenge refused to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents, however, directed the respondents that those who in past had filed separate or joint writ petitions in the High Court and were allowed relief by the High Court shall be considered first if they find place in the list of successful candidates furnished< by the Public Service Commission to the Government under the order of the Court. This judgment of the High Court has been challenged in the present appeal on the ground that the same is directly opposed to the judgment earlier passed by it on 14-7-2000 which was maintained by this Court vide order dated 26-9-2000. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that some 200 persons were inducted in service out of successful candidates on merits and by keeping in view the quota fixed by the Government for induction in service from various Districts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and refugees settled in Pakistan. According to him the direction given by the High Court through order under challenge has created anomalous situation because according to this direction the appellants have been directed to give preference to the respondents while making appointments in The Education Department. According to him if respondents are accommodated there is likelihood that the quota shall be violated and that may give rise to multiple litigation and resultantly the working of department would be badly affected.
6. While opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appeal has been filed by the Government in vacuum. No material has been placed on record to justify that by the induction of respondents the quota or merit shall be adversely affected. According to them a person who comes to the Court for any relief is entitled to claim as of right the fruit of the litigation in case of his success. According to them the respondents deserves induction in service on account of their success in test and interview conducted by the Public Service Commission. The appellants on account of malice that respondents have disturbed their planning through which they had withheld certain posts are denying them relief by refusing their induction in service on one pretext of the other.
7. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. No material has been made available before us with this appeal to prove that the induction in service of the respondents the quota or merit determined by the Public Service Commission shall be disturbed. The presumption on account of this reason would be that respondents on account of their merit and quota were entitled to be accommodated in service as was claimed by them in their writ petition before the High Court. In a case titled Abdul Qadeer v.
Azad Government [(2000 SCR 22)1, the land belonging to different owners was acquired by the Government for the construction of University Campus under the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Scheme) Ordinance, 1981. Under the provisions of this Ordinance the maximum compensation at District Headquarter could be awarded at the rate of Rs,20,000 per Kanal besides 50 per cent 'Jabrana'. The compensation of this land, therefore, was awarded to the landowners at the rate fixed under the above referred Ordinance. Some of the land-owners accepted the rates under the Ordinance, however, some of them challenged the correctness of this Ordinance in a writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the same were violative of the provisions of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The High Court accepted the writ petitions and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs,4,00,000 per Kanal plus 'Jabrana' in the light of the record which was appended by these owners with their writ petitions. The remaining landowners later on also filed a writ petition in the High Court praying therein that as the relevant provisions of the Ordinance have been struck down they, therefore, are also entitled to the compensation of their land at the rate of Rs,4,00,000 per Kanal as was done in the case of other landowners. Their writ petition was accepted by the High Court. On appeal to this Court it was held that they were not entitled to any relief as their writ petition was hit by laches. On the analogy of this judgment it becomes clear that those who availed the remedy well in time and otherwise deserves relief must be given preference. Admittedly on the writ petitions of the respondents the High Court had granted relief, therefore, the direction of the High Court in the absence of any material before us that these candidates have not been held successful by the Public Service Commission or by their induction quota or merit shall be disturbed, deserves their induction on preferential basis. By allowing this relief no error appears to have been committed by the High Court which could justify our interference in our appellate jurisdiction.
' This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.