2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

The petitioner through this Constitutional petition is aggrieved of an order whereby the name of the petitioner has not been recommended by the respondent/Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the 'Commission') and has prayed as under:

"In view of the aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to (i) Set aside the decision of PPSC in the Impugned Letter to cancel the candidature of the petitioner as done without lawful authority and with mala fide intentions; (ii) Direct PPSC to appoint the petitioner at post of Educationist that she has achieved after passing the written exam and interview with shining marks. (iii) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems appropriate may also be granted."

2. The petitioner in response of an advertisement, applied for the post of Educator (BS-16) in Special Education Department Government of Punjab, the application of the petitioner was accepted and she was allowed to sit in the written examination conducted by the Commission. The petitioner qualified the written examination and was called for interview, through a call letter by the Commission. The petitioner appeared in the interview and finally secured the following marks, as informed by the Law Officer of the Commission:- Academic 32 Written 32 Interview 81 Total- 145 The petitioner was placed at serial No.24 in the merit list, whereas the Commission conducted the written test and interview for 48 posts.

3. The Commission recommended 48 successful candidates for appointment to the concerned department but the name of the petitioner was not included in the list, as submitted by the petitioner. When enquired, it was informed, that as the petitioner despite notice failed to submit the original bank challan of Rs.400/- within 7 working days after conducting the interview i.e. 19.3.2015, therefore, the name of the petitioner has not been recommended and his initial application has been rejected, against which, the petitioner filed a review petition, which too was dismissed.

4. In response of the notice, the learned Law Officer of the Commission along with the learned Assistant Advocate-General appeared in the Court and submitted, that although the petitioner qualified for the said post and placed at serial No.24 of the merit list, but could not be recommended because of non-supplying the original bank challan of Rs.400/-.

5. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that the petitioner deposited Rs.400/- well within time as required by the Commission and also mentioned the number of bank challan in the application, but this has totally been ignored by the Commission. When this fact was confronted to the learned Law Officer of the Commission, the learned Law Officer frankly conceded to the fact, that the petitioner deposited the amount within the stipulated time and also mentioned the number of bank challan, but the Commission is not supposed to verify the number from the concerned bank to enquire as to whether the amount of Rs.400/- had been deposited within time or not.

6. In view of the above facts it looks very strange and painful, that the Commission on this technicality thrown away a successful candidate who had legitimate expectation and did not recommend his name despite the fact, that her name was placed by the Commission in the merit list at serial No.24, whereas 48 successful candidates are to be recommended by the Commission for appointment to the concerned department. Undisputedly the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.400/- well within time, mentioned the number of bank challan in the application, the Commission had unlimited sources to enquire from the concerned bank the veracity of the contents of application submitted by the petitioner wherein the bank challan number was mentioned, the Commission instead of performing its primary and fundamental duty, in a mechanical way elected to delete the name of the petitioner from the merit list, which in any case cannot be expected from the Commission which is vested with intrinsic parental jurisdiction to overcome this type of technicalities. The institution which is known to provide the employment on merits, is always expected to act like parents, therefore, this type of omission or illegality committed by the Commission should not be remained in the field. This type of proposition has already been dealt with by this Court in a judgment cited as Sheeraz Aziz Cheema v. Punjab Public Service Commission, through Secretary and 2 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 545) wherein it has been held that this type of the omission should be ignored by the Commission, particularly in the circumstances when it is to be seen whether the approach adopted by the Commission not to recommend her for appointment is justified. His lordship while delivering the judgment (supra) has observed "Needless to reiterate that too much adherence to technicalities which impedes the cause of justice cannot be countenanced by the Court". There is another judgment cited as Nazia Javed v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore and another (2009 PLC (CS) 58), lends support to the assertion of the petitioner wherein almost in identical circumstances, this Court passed a direction to the Commission in favour of the writ petitioner. In another judgment cited as Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali and others (PLD 1963 SC 382) the Honourable Jurist of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that "the proper place of the procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy."

7. The learned Law Officer also submitted during the proceedings, that as the recommendations have already been forwarded to the concerned department, therefore, the Commission is precluded by law to make any recommendation, but if the concerned department demands or makes the requisition, the Commission would have no objection to recommend the petitioner. At this stage, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Secretary Special Education, Government of Punjab was impleaded as respondent in the constitutional petition and learned Assistant Advocate-General was directed to summon the representative of the Special Education Department, Government of the Punjab. Mr. Muhammad Kashif Hayat, Advocate/Law Officer of the Special Education Department appeared and submitted, that the successful candidates recommended by the Commission are joining their posts, but if the Commission recommends the name of the petitioner, the Special Education Department would have no objection to accommodate her.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition is accepted, the order of the Commission to reject the candidature of the petitioner and refusing to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment in the concerned department is declared illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority and the matter is referred to the Chairmen, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore to look into the matter in these light of the observation made above. This exercise shall be completed positively within a period of 30 days from today. Since the matter relates to the appointment, therefore, the petitioner along with copy of this order shall appear before the Chairman/Commission on 17.08.2015 for further proceedings. ZC/S-114/L Petition allowed.