' Although the case is in motion hearing yet since the parties are represented and have been heard at length this petition is being finally disposed of.
2. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. Gujranwala invited applications for 89 posts in BS. 1 to 12 including 7 posts of Assistant (BS-11) through a public notice in the press on 24-2- 1995. The petitioner was one of the candidates for the post of Assistant. According to the averments of the writ petition he was duly selected but formal appointment letter was not issued on the ground that Provincial Government had imposed the ban on fresh recruitment.
3. It may be noted that the process of selection was finalized in the year 1995 but appointment letters were not issued because a number of writ petitions were filed before this Court questioning the process of selection. An interim order was passed on 12-3-1995 in Writ Petition No,2802-95. This petition was disposed on 24-3-1997. Another Writ Petition bearing No,17021-95 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17-3-1996 by which it was directed that those applicants who had applied in pursuance of the public notice and had cleared the written test would appear before the Recruitment Committee constituted vide notification dated 27-3-1995 and a fresh merit list would be prepared, Writ Petition No, 12313 of 1997 was also pending before this Court in which vide order dated 26-5-1997, the respondent-Board was restrained to make any appointment. This writ petition was disposed of on 14-3-2000 on the statement of the petitioner in the said case that he wanted to approach the respondent-Board.
4. After the disposal of the Writ Petition No,12313 of 1997 the Board, in its meeting held on 31-3-2000, decided to fill in 20% vacant posts of Assistants by initial appointment only from amongst the employees of the Board and 80% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Thus, the outsiders were eliminated, although at the time of the public notice 33% posts of Assistants were reserved for direct recruitment (including outsiders) and 67% were reserved for promotion from amongst the employees of the Board on the basis seniority-cum-fitness.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the Board altering the method of recruitment in the meeting held on 31-3-2000 could not be applied with retrospective effect to annul selection of the petitioner duly made in the year 1995..He invited my attention to Annex R.I with the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondent-Board according to which the petitioner was at Serial No,5 of the merit list against 7 vacancies of the Assistants. He further contends that as far as the ban imposed by the Government of the Punjab is concerned, the question has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rana Muhammad Ilyas and others v.
Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (PLD 2001 SC 531) wherein it has been held that ban imposed by the Government of the Punjab on 22-2-1997 on fresh recruitment was not applicable to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that according to the decision taken by the Board in the meeting held on 31-3-2000 outsiders are not eligible for the post of Assistant and all these posts have to be filled inform amongst the employees of the Board. He submits that according to 20% quota for direct recruitment only 4 posts of Assistants were available and the petitioner who was at Sr. No,5 could not otherwise be appointed.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that in accordance with the rules which were in force at the time the applications were invited and the process of selection was undertaken i,e, 23-6-1996 on which date the interviews were held, the petitioners was eligible for direct appointment to the post of Assistant.
The decision dated 31-3-2000 of the Board could not, therefore, be applied with retrospective effect to annul the selection of the petitioner which had been made in accordance with rules then in force. The ban imposed by the Government on fresh recruitment vide letter dated 22-2-1997 has been held to be in applicable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rana Muhammad Ilyas and another supra. Therefore, the refusal of the respondent-Board to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post for which he was selected is based on utter misconception and misapplication of its decision dated 31-3-2000.
8. For what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed and respondent-Board is directed to issue formal letter of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Assistant. No order as to costs.