2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.

This judgment shall also dispose of the following writ petitions as common questions of law are involved in all these cases:-

1. W.P. No. 170/2004, (2) W.P. No.33/2005. (3) W.P. No.25/2005. (4) W.P. No.69/2005. (5) W.P. No.86/2005. (6) W.P. No.168/2005. (7) W.P. No.172/2005. (8) W.P. No.196/2005. (9) W.P. No.199/2005. (10) W.P. No.232/2005. (11) W.P. No.233/2005, (12) W.P. No.286/2005. (13) W.P. No.290/2005. (14) W.P. No.295/2005. (15) W.P. No.307/2005. (16) W.P. No.328/2005.

2. The facts in the background are that vide an advertisement dated 5-11-2003 applications were invited for the posts of C.T teachers. The applications were received and processed. The rules provided for the filling up of the vacancies on the basis of' 75% on year-wise/batch-wise basis and 25% on merit basis. Two percent posts were reserved for the disabled persons. The respondents notified certain appointments as a result of the said selection process. Initially 20 persons were appointed where 5 persons were appointed on merit, one against a disabled quota and 14 persons were appointed on the posts reserved for year-wise/batch wise quota. Thereafter certain other appointments were made on different dates. The petitioners, feeling themselves aggrieved against the said subsequent appointments, challenged the same through their constitutional petitions (as stated hereinabove) on the ground that they were senior in batch whereas they have been discriminated and people junior in batch have been appointed. The respondents submitted their detailed comments and in some of the petitions, the petitioners had filed rejoinders as well. Since common questions were involved in all these petitions, therefore, these were fixed for hearing today and the representative of the official respondents were called upon to furnish the true facts and the background.

3. The detailed lists show that there were 37 male petitioners and 11 female petitioners. So far as the Notification No.18888-907 dated 27-12-2003 relating the appointment of 20 persons is concerned, the petitioners did not have any objection with regard thereto because all the said appointees related to the batches of 1986, 1990, and 1992, Therefore, the said appointment was in accordance with the law B and the rules. However, subsequent appointment against 37 posts, after 27-12-2003, were subjected to several legal objections that the appointments were made without caring for the batch-wise seniority and in some cases, the appointments were made of the candidates who did not apply for appointment or did not participate in the selection process of test and interview. The analysis of the list shall display that:--

1. The appointees pertained to the batches of 1994 to the batch of 2003 whereas the petitioners belonged to the batches of 1992 till the batch of 2003, who were deprived of the appointments.

2. Some of the petitioners did not apply in response to the said advertisement and, therefore, they had no cause to agitate. Similarly some of the respondents/appointees also did not apply, and so their appointments were legally invalid.

3. The appointments subsequent to 27-12-2003 were made neither on the basis of a merit list nor a waiting list. Individual appointments were made on different dates irrespective of their year-wise/batch-wise seniority position. This displays favouritism to some of them and discrimination to some of the petitioners.

4. After listening to the detailed arguments on behalf of the parties and analyzing the record, we are of the view that the appointments subsequent to the order of 27-12-2003 were legally defective, based on c the excessive use of the authority by the official respondents and discriminative to the rights vested in some of the petitioners under the relevant rules. The concept of waiting list has not been approved by the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, for the appointments against the subsequently available vacancies, the procedure of advertisement, selection process and final appointment based on transparent and legal orders should have been made. However, since the subsequent process of selection would also attract applications of the same candidates and the batch-wise seniority has to be claimed, therefore, we hold that:-- (a) The appointment of all the candidates i.e. the petitioners and appointees shall be re-adjusted on the basis of the year wise/batch-wise seniority. (b) These adjustments on year-wise/batch-wise basis should be made separately for the male and female candidates. (c) Those who had not applied shall not be considered during this process of adjustment and they shall be eligible to apply against future vacancies. (d) By adjusting the petitioners and the appointees on their year wise/batch-wise criteria as declared hereinabove, the services of the appointees beyond the said scope shall be terminated, and (e) The future vacancies should be filled up through fresh advertisement in accordance with the rules where the unsuccessful petitioners and the dropped-out appointees shall be eligible to apply afresh.

5. In view of the above criteria, the petitions of all those petitioners, who can be considered to be eligible on the basis of year-wise seniority shall be deemed to have been allowed and the petitions where the year-wise seniority does not entitle the petitioner to an appointment against the available vacancies, shall be deemed to have been dismissed. H.B.T./1/P Order accordingly.