' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.--- Applications from eligible candidates were invited by the Public Service Commission (hereinafter called respondent No,3) for the post of Agricultural Economist B.P.S.18 through an advertisement which appeared in the Daily Mashriq Peshawar in its issue of 27th April, 1996. The petitioner on being interviewed was selected by respondent No,3 and recommendations in this behalf were communicated to the Secretary to Government (hereinafter called respondent No,2). Respondent No,2 instead of accepting the recommendations sought its review vide his letter, dated 10-4-1997 from respondent No,3 in view of the complaints made by the other two candidates who also appeared before respondent No,3 for the same post. Respondent No,3 while refusing to entertain any objection again vide letter, dated 10-5-1997 directed respondent No,2 to ensure the compliance of the recommendations. When respondent No,2 succeeded in getting the post abolished notwithstanding the recommendations of respondent No,3, the petitioner filed this Constitutional petition in this Court for an appropriate writ ensuring the implementation of the recommendations of respondent No,3.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the recommendations were made by respondent No,3 for the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Agriculture Economist, there was no justification whether legal or moral on the part of respondent No,2 to circumvent them on one pretext or another. He next contended that the recommendations made by respondent No,3 are of binding nature and they could not have been turned down by respondent No,2 particularly when a valuable right has accrued to the petitioner in the wake of the aforesaid recommendations.
3. As against that the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the recommendations made by respondent No,3 tare not of binding nature and if a valid objection as made by respondent No,2 that could not have been ignored. He by placing reliance on the case of Dr. Habibur Rehman v. West Pakistan Public Service Commission, Lahore and 4 others PLD 1973 SC 144 concluded that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission being advisory in nature cannot be enforced through a Constitutional petition.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material available on the record and entire law relevant in this behalf.
5. It is not disputed that on requisition from the Department, respondent No,3 proceeded to invite applications from eligible candidates and after evaluating their merit recommended the petitioner for appointment against the said post.
6. The question which surface for the consideration of this Court are as to what are the functions of the Public Service Commission and what is the nature of recommendations made by it? Before we answer the question it is worthwhile to refer to the relevant provisions of the North-West Frontier Province Public Service Commission Ordinance (XI of 1978) which read as under:-- "7. Functions of the Commission.--- The functions of the Commission shall be-
(a) To conduct test and examination for recruitment to such service and posts in connection with the affairs of the Province as may be prescribed; and
(b) to advise the Governor on merits relating to qualification for and methods of recruitment to the services and posts referred to in clause (a), and any other matter which the Governor may refer to the Commission.
8. Commission to be informed when its advise not accepted.--- Where the Governor does not accept the advice of the Commission, he shall inform the Commission accordingly."
7. Similar were the provisions contained in the defunct Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962 qua the functions of the Public Service Commission and the nature of recommendations made by it, which being relevant to the present controversy are also reproduced and thus run as follows:-- "186. Functions of Provincial Public Service Commission.--- (1) The functions of a Provincial Public Service Commission shall be-
(a) to conduct tests and examination for the selection of suitable persons for appointment to the Civil Services of the Province concerned and civil posts connected with the affairs of the Province;
(b) to advise the Governor of the Province on any matter on which the Commission is consulted under clause (2) of this Article or which is referred to the Commission by the Governor; and
(c) such other functions as may be prescribed by law;
(d) except to the extent that the Governor of a Province, after consulting the Public Service Commission of the Province, may provide otherwise by order, the Governor shall, in relation to the Civil services of the Province and civil posts connected with the affairs of the Province, consult the Commission with respect to-
(a) matters relating to qualification for, and methods of recruitment to, services and posts;
(b) the principles on which appointments and promotion should be made,
(c) the principles on which persons belonging to one service should be transferred to another;
(d) matters affecting terms and conditions of service and proposals adversely affecting pension rights; and
(3) Disciplinary matters.
188. Commission to be advised when advise notacceptable.--- ' Where the President or a Governor does not accept the advice of a Commission, he shall inform the Commission accordingly."
8. A bare reading of the above quoted provisions would reveal that nature of recommendations made by the Public Service Commission are advisory in nature and as such are not binding on the Governor who shall inform the Commission if and when he does not agree with its advice.
9. While interpreting the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution, which, as observed earlier, are almost similar to the provisions of the Ordinance referred to above, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Doctor Habibur Rehman v. Public Service Commissioner, Lahore and 4 others (supra), held that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission are advisory in nature and it is open to the appointing authority under Article 188 of the Constitution not to accept them.
10. In the case of Bahadur Shah, Divisional Engineer Development and others v. Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Communication and another 1988 SCM R 769, the apex Court while interpreting the para materia provisions of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, which is a replica of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commissioner Ordinance XI of 1978 held that recommendations by the Federal Public Service Commission being advisory in nature are not binding upon the President on any count.
11. Apart from this when the post, as is averred in the writ petition and admitted during the course of arguments, has been abolished by the Governor, who was well within his rights to do so under the Ordinance, we do not think, the petitioner has been left with anything to be enforced through the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
12. The last limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the \petitioner that a valuable right has accrued to the petitioner, in the wake of the recommendation made by the Commission would also do little to change the fate of this case as the recommendation remains inchoate and unenforceable unless accepted by the Government.
' As a corollary to what is discussed above, this petition being without merit is dismissed.