' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Brief facts out of which present IntraCourt Appeal arises are that appellant No,1 invited Applications to fill up the vacant posts of Managers as is evident from public notice published in Daily Naw-e-Waqat and Nation dated 16-8-1995. 950 Candidates submitted their applications in obedience of the aforesaid advertisement. Out of which 575 were called for written test. The written test was held on 14-10-1995 and only 420 appeared in the said written test. The result was declared by the appellant on 14-9-1996 which reveals that only 111 candidates had passed the examination, who were ailed for interview test by the appellant. After completion of process,19 including 6 respondents were selected. The private respondents were amongst first 15 while remaining 4 were kept in the waiting list. The recommendation of the Recruitment Committee was approved by the Board of Directors vide .Order dated 8-2-1996. The appellants did not issue the appointment letters to the private respondents under the direction of the then Chief Minister.
The private respondents being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No,18407 of 1997. The aforesaid writ petition was accepted by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 10-11-1999. Hence, the present I.C.A.
2. The learned counsel of the appellants submits that the appellants are not amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction. He further submits that the appellants are not performing any function in connection with affairs of Province or Local Authority, therefore, the Constitutional petition was not maintainable before the learned Single Judge in view of Article 199(1)(a)( In support Of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:- ' Lahore Central Cooperative Bank v. Pir Sail Ullah Shah (PLD 1959 SC 210); Faiz Ahmad v. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others (PLD 1962 SC 315): Zainul Abdin v. Multan Central Cooperative Bank (PLD 1966 SC 445); The Chairman East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation Dacca v.
Rustam Ali and others (PLD 1966 SC 848) and A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 1971 Lah. 748).
' He further submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider the aforesaid judgments and erred in law to entertain the Constitutional petition without adverting to the Preliminary Objection No,1 raised by the appellants in report and parawise comments in its true perspective as is evident from para. No,8 of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the status of the Appellant-Bank is of a Cooperative Society, therefore, the respondents could not file Constitutional petition without sending notice to the appellants under section 70 of the Cooperative Society Act, 1925. He further submits that service rules of the appellant-bank are not statutory rules: whereas the appellant-bank admittedly is a cooperative society which is run and controlled by the Board of Directors duly elected by the District Representative in turn elected by the society. He further submits that no vested right accrued to the respondents as appointment letters were not issued by the appellants to the respondents. He further submits that during the 'process of selection of the private respondents, the State Bank of Pakistan had imposed. Ban of fresh recruitment on the schedule bank which was approved by the Board of Directors of the, appellant-bank vide resolution dated 25-4-1997. According to the aforesaid resolution, Board of Directors approved to close down such branches of the bank which were in losses and deposited less than Rs,25,00,000 except for those branches which were working at District and Tehsil Headquarters. He further urges that appellant No,1 submitted case to respondent No,8, who approved the issuance of appointment letters to successful candidates but the then Chief Minister in his note requested the Secretary Cooperative, respondent No,8 to re-examine the matter in perspective of Bank's financial constraints and the national economy.
2. Malik Khizar Hayat. Assistant Advocate-General, supported the case of the appellants and stated that Constitutional petition filed by the private-respondents was not maintainable and he adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.
3. Learned counsel of 'respondents Nos.1 to 6 submits that the respondents 'submitted their applications for the posts in question in obedience of advertisement of the appellants in the Daily Nawa-e-Waqat and Nation dated 16-8-1995. The respondents appeared in the written test and interview held by the appellants and were declared successful. The Chief Minister had approved the summary on 28-3-1997, therefore, the subsequent note of respondents Nos.7 and 8, is. Not valid in the eyes of law. The vested right had accrued in favour of the respondents in view of the aforesaid circumstances. The appellants have no lawful authority to deviate from the order of the Chief Minister dated 28-3-1997. He further submits that the then Chief Minister had no lawful authority to stop the process of issuance of - appointment letters in favour of private respondents by the appellants in February, 1996. He further submits that the appellants had to exercise discretion after applying independent mind. The learned Single Judge has given findings of facts against the appellants that the appointment letters were not issued by the appellants to the private respondents, malafidely.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties. Public notice appeared in Daily Nawa-e-Waqat and Nation dated 16-8-1995 qua the post in question under the direction of appellants. The private respondents submitted their applications within prescribed period. The private respondents appeared in the written test held by the appellants on 14-10-1995. The result of written test was declared by the appellants on 14-1-1996 and private respondents were declared successful. The private respondents were called for interview test alongwith other candidates by the appellants. The private respondents were selected by the appellants alongwith other 13 candidates. The private respondents were amongst first 15.. The Board of Directors approved the recommendation of Recruitment Committee on 8-2-1996. Appellant No,1 sent summary for the Chief Minister on 14-3- 1997 under the heading of Direct Recruitment of Managers of Punjab, Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. Through respondent No,8 who sent summary to the then Chief Minister alongwith his note dated 15-3-1997 which is as follows:-- "Earlier a note was submitted to the Chief Minister vide this office No,110-N dated 4-2-1996 (Annex- Y). Latest position of the case is explained by the Registrar Cooperatives, Punjab in the above paras. The case has also been discussed with him and he is of the view that the above recruitment was made strictly on merit and the appointment letters may, therefore, be issued to the successful candidates.
' Submitted for orders.
6. The concerned Minister made remarks on the said note of respondent No,8 on 25-3-1997, "please discuss". The subsequent note reveals that the matter was discussed with Secretary Cooperative on 26-3-1997, the then Chief Minister approved the same on 28-3-1997 in the following words:-- "In view of the fact that the recruitment was made on merit, Cooperative Department may go ahead for the issuance of appointment letters".
' It appears that subsequently, respondent No,8 resubmitted, the case on 7-4-1997. The Chief Minister passed the following order on 14-4-1997 in the following terms:-- "The Chief Minister has seen and directed that as desired by Minister Cooperative, Secretary Cooperative may resubmit on the point, whether Cooperative Bank can do without the 15 posts of Managers".
' Respondent No,8 did not resubmit the case to the Chief Minister as is evident from Annexure-A attached alongwith report and parawise comments of the appellants. The Board of Directors of the appellants passed the resolution dated 26-4-1997 under the direction of State Bank of Pakistan qua fresh recruiutment in the Appellant-Bank.
7. The aforesaid narration of facts shows that private respondents passed the written test and interview held by the appellants. The appellants sent the summary to the then Chief Minister through respondent No,8 who had approved the same vide order dated 28-3-1997 and observed that the .Tecruitment was made on merit, therefore, Cooperative Department to go ahead for issuing the appointment letters. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No,8 resubmitted the summary to the Chief Miniker on 7-4-1997 which reveals that matter may be looked into keeping in view national economy measures and re-examine the proposal. The note of Additional Secretary to Chief Minister dated 14-4-1997 reveals that matter be resubmitted on the point whether Cooperative Bank can do WithOut 15 posts of the Managers. The appellants failed to attach any document that the summary was resubmitted after re-examination by respondent No,8 to the then Chief Minister. Therefore, order of the Chief Minister dated 28-3-1997 remains in the field. It is admitted fact that all the formalities were completed by the appellants- except the issuance of appointment letters to the private respondents: The appellants passed the resolution on 26-4-1997 qua fresh recruitment in obedience to the direction of the State Bank of Pakistan. The resolution was passed by the appellants on 26-4-1997 whereas the summary submitted by the appellants through. Respondent No,8 to the Chief Minister was approved by him vide order dated 28-3-1997. Therefore, the said resolution had prospective effect and not retrospective effect: The action of the appellants to withhold the appointment letters of the private respondents is without lawful authority. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rana Muhammad Ilyas and others v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Rawalpindi and others (PLD 2001 SC 531). It is also admitted fact that appellant No:1 had sent a summary to the then Chief Minister through respondent ,No,8, therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has no force that Constitutional petition against appellants was not maintainable on the well known principle of aprobate and reprobate in view of law laid down in Ghulam Rasool's case (PLD 1971 SC 376). In view of peculiar circumstances of this case in tact private respondents tiled Constitutional petition for implementation of order of the then Chief Minister dated 28-3-1997. The learned single Judge in fact directed the appellants to implement the order of the then Chief Minister which is in accordance with law as this Court has ample jurisdiction under Article 199 of the 'Constitution to give directions to the public functionaries to act in accordance with law in view of Article 4 of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:- ' S.H.M. Rizvi v. Maqsood Ahmad (PLD 1981 SC 612): Maj (Retd.) Aftab Ahmad v. Azad Government (1992 SCMR 307); Farooq Ahmad Khan and others v. Shaukat Jan Bauch (1998 PLC (C.S.) 425); Iqbal Ahmad and others v. Secretary Ministry of Education (1998 PLC (C.S.) 542) and Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid (1991 SCMR 696).
' The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable on facts and law in view of the aforesaid circumstances and principles laid down by the Superior Courts in the aforesaid judgments.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is dismissed.