2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

All these petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment dated 20-11-2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.3410 of 2000.

2. The petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.3206/L of 2003 and 257-L of 2004) were appointed on 1-10-1995 to the posts of Secretary, Union Council pursuant to the advertisements in the press and selection by the Recruitment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman. After completion of probation period of two years, the petitioners were confirmed as such. Therefore; the respondent .Muhammad Pervaiz (also petitioner in C.P. 225-L of 2004) filed Writ Petition No.3410 of 2000 calling in-question the validity of the appointments of the petitioners. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by the impugned judgment dated 20-11-2003, allowed the writ petition of respondent No.1 and declared the appointment of the petitioners to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It was further directed that the said post would be filed in accordance with law after inviting applications through public notice. Hence Civil Petitions Nos.3206-L of 2003 and 257-L of 2004 by the petitioners and Civil Petition No.225-L of 2004 by the respondent Muhammad Pervaiz, for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were duly appointed and confirmed to the posts of Secretary, Union Council after publication in the press and on selection by the properly constituted District Recruitment Committee headed by its Chairman/Deputy Commissioner, Narowal. The appointments of the petitioners were made on merit. The learned counsel further pointed out that Muhammad Afzal Khan, petitioner No.2 in C.P. 3206-L of 2003 was a graduate whereas the respondent Muhammad Pervaiz possessed the qualification of intermediate only. The petitioners, were not lacking any qualification or eligibility in any respect.

4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, also stated that in the meantime the department was able to retrieve the missing record of the appointment of the petitioners which could not be produced before High Court. It is clear from the record that the appointments of the petitioners were made on merits and that the record of their selection had not been tampered with. The learned Law Officer, categorically stated on instructions from Assistant Director, Local Government, Narowal, that some posts of Secretary, Union Council were still lying vacant which were not being filled in because of general ban on recruitment imposed by the Government. As soon as it was lifted, the vacant posts would be advertised. In case the respondent No.1 Muhammad Pervaiz (petitioner) in C.P. 225-L of 2003) made an application pursuant to the advertisement, his case for appointment would be considered quite sympathetically.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner had also acquired his qualification of graduation. However, in view of the statement of the learned Law Officer, the learned counsel did not press Civil Petition No.225-L of 2004 nor did he oppose the acceptance of Civil Petitions Nos.3206-L of 2003 and 257-L of 2004 filed by the petitioners.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record. The petitioners were appointed, pursuant to the advertisement in the press, after selection by the District Recruitment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman. No serious defect in the appointment of the petitioners was shown from record which was brought by the Assistant Director, Local Government, Narowal. The respondent No.1 filed writ petition after a period of five years when the petitioners had already been confirmed in their appointments after successful completion of probation period. The writ petition suffered from gross laches without there being any justifiable explanation. Some minor irregularities, if any, in the appointment of the petitioners were not sufficient for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against the petitioners. The impugned judgment is not sustainable at law.

7. For the foregoing reasons, Civil Petitions Nos.3206-L of 2003 and 257-L of 2004 are converted into appeal and the same are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 20-11-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No.3410 of 2000 is set aside. However, Civil Petition No.225-L of 2004 of respondent Muhammad Pervaiz is disposed of as not pressed in view of the above statement of the learned Assistant Advocate-General. M.H./M-185/S Appeals allowed.