' I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:--
1. W.P. No,10888 of 1996.
2. W.P. No,17096 of 1996.
2. The brief facts out of which the aforesaid writ petitions arise are that respondent No,1 issued public notice inviting applications for appointment for the post of Assistant BPS-11 with the following qualifications:-- ' B.A. Age: 18 to 25. Resident of Gujrat.
' Domicile and NIC from District Gujrat.
' The petitioners submitted their applications in obedience of the advertisement. The petitioners were allegedly called for interview and test by the Recruitment Committee. The respondents issued appointment letter in favour of respondent No,2 on 11-6-1995. The petitioners being aggrieved filed aforesaid writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that respondent No,1 had issued appointment letter in favour of respondent No,2 under the direction of Chief Minister as is evident from the report and parawise comments filed by respondent No,1 in reply of para-6. They further submit that petitioner secured vested right after appearing in the interview and test. Respondent No,2 is not resident of Gujrat and he did not appear in the, interview and test before the Recruitment Committee.
Therefore, appointment letter of respondent No,2 is without lawful authority. They further submit that operation of appointment letter of the respondent was suspended by this Court on 15-9-1996.
4. Learned counsel of respondent No,2 submits that respondent No,2 appeared in the interview and test as is evident from the appointment letter issued by respondent No,1 in favour of the petitioner.
He further submits that respondent No,2 served the department for one year. Therefore respondent No,2 had accrued vested right on the well-known principle of locus poenitentie. He further urges that respondent No,1 issued appointment letter in favour of respondent No,2 on 11-6-1995 whereas the petitioner filed writ petitions before this Court on 25-6-1996. Therefore, writ petitions, are liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of laches. The petitioners are estopped to file the aforesaid writ petitions on the well-known principle of waiver and estopple.
4-A. Learned Addl. A.G. Submits that appointment letter of respondent No,2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce reply of paras-6 and 10 of report and parwaise comments filed by respondent No,1 to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "6. Incorrect. To the extent that the Revenue Minister, Government of the Punjab did not interfere instead the appointment was made under the order of the then Chief Minister, Punjab and clarification was also sought from the high-ups. (copy enclosed)"
"10. Incorrect. He did not qualify to be appointed as Assistant. The appointment was not made under the orders of the Revenue Minister, Punjab . "
The aforesaid stand of the respondent No,1 clearly reveals that respondent No,2 secured appointment letter under political influence or in connection with the then Chief Minister. It is admitted fact that Chief Minister under the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 has no authority to give direction to respondent No,1 to appoint a person of his own choice. The appointment letter was issued by respondent No,1 in favour of respondent No,2 under the direction of the then Chief Minister therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din's case (PLD 1964 SC 829). The principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted as the order was not issued by the Competent Authority after applying its independent mind in terms of the advertisement issued by respondent No,1 in the newspapers. There were no recommendations of the Recruitment Committee in favour of respondent No,2 in view of stand taken by respondent No,1 in report and parwaise comments therefore, principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalal Din's case (PLD 1992 SC 207). It is also admitted fact that respondent No,1 did not prepare the merit list on the recommendations of the Recruitment Committee therefore, the petitioners have also no right to be appointed in place of respondent No,2.
' In view of what has been discussed above, these writ petitions are accepted to the extent that appointment of respondent No,2 is not in accordance with law, therefore, the same is set aside. The incumbent of respondent No,1 is directed to appoint any person in accordance with law, policy of the Government, Rules and Regulations after advertising the same in the daily newspapers, in case the post is still vacant.