2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

This is a writ petition seeking the following direction:-- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting this writ petition the respondent may graciously be directed to regularize the petitioner as Assistant Professor BPS-19 in the department of Business Management Department from the date of his first appointment which is 6th May, 2010.

1. That impugned advertisement/notification Vide No.KIU-SENATE-10/2015/26311 DATED 1st JUNE 2015 may please be declared null and void and the same may kindly be set aside to meet the ends of justice.

2. Any other relief which this Honorable Court may deem proper and just may also be granted in favour of petitioner."

2. Petitioner applied for his appointment against the suit post in the light of advertisement published in "Daily K-2" dated 26-12-2009 and "Daily Dawn" dated 30-12-2009. Petitioner qualified written test and interview taken by the respondents for the suit post and appointed on contract basis. Respondents extended the contract period from time to time and lastly, on 18-06-2015, respondents advertised the suit post in Daily K-2, whereby, applications were invited for appointment of suitable candidates on permanent basis.

3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the relevant law governing selection of a candidate against a permanent post. It is very important to note that in the light of University Rules, no person can be appointed against a post on permanent basis unless and until such person is recommended by Selection Board of the University. Admittedly, petitioner appeared before the said board at least three times but the board did not recommend him for his appointment on permanent basis. Feeling aggrieved from such attitude of the board, petitioner filed this petition.

4. It is not disputed that petitioner appeared before the selection board of respondents thrice, firstly, on 14/15 of April, 2010, secondly on 21/21 of February, 2012 and thirdly, on 09-04-2015, with the hope of his selection against the suit post. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on case law reported in GBLR 2010 page 221, and contended that petitioner has every right to be selected against the suit post in the light of principle laid down in the said case law. We have gone through the said case law and have considered said arguments of the counsel for petitioner. It is not disputed that respondents selected petitioner for his appointment on contract basis against the suit post only after subjecting him through the written test and interview etc. So, we are of the opinion that respondents are legally bound to pass appointment orders of petitioner against the suit post, in the light of said order of the Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit. Petitioner is just bound to appear before the selection board on a date and time fix by VC KIU (respondent No.1). For ready reference, we reproduce the findings of the learned Supreme Appellate Court, that the said Hon'ble court passed in the above quoted case law, which goes as under:- "The rule of fair treatment and natural justice would demand that candidates who have qualified the test and interview on the basis of 40% aggregate marks have acquired a legitimate right of selection on their own merits and should have been dealt with accordingly. Similarly the candidates who were appointed on contract basis in the prescribed manner would be entitled to be considered for regular appointment in their own right on the basis of their contract service. In the light of the above discussion to ensure the fair treatment and transparent selection we direct that the Registrar of the University will place the case of petitioners in Review Petitions Nos.2 of 2008 and 6 of 2008 falling within the purview of Para (b) and (c) of the judgment referred above before the Selection Board for final selection on merits on a date to be fixed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University and in the light of the recommendations of Selection Board the competent authority will make appointment accordingly. With the above modification in the judgment under review these review petitions are disposed of."

5. Result is that petition allowed partly. We direct respondents for appointment of the petitioner against suit post but only after petitioner appears before the selection board on a date and time fix by respondent No.1. Obviously, treatment to such appearance of petitioner be given in the light of and in strict adherence to the principle laid down by the learned Supreme Appellate Court in the above referred case law. Moreover, contractual services of petitioner to continue till his such appointment. Petition allowed accordingly. This file be consigned to record. ZC/34/GB Petition allowed.