2006 PLP 1082 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Listed appeals by the leave of the Court are directed against order, dated 27-9-1999 passed by an I.C.A. Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which are being disposed of by this common judgment as identical questions of facts and law are involved therein. (2). Precisely stating facts of the case are that appellants applied for jobs against different vacancies lying vacant in the Education Department as per advertisements appeared in the Newspaper. They were selected by the Departmental Committees accordingly. But their appointment letters could not be issued, as in the meanwhile, on 22-2-1997. Government of Punjab placed ban on recruitments. As such, they invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court seeking directions to the department for the issuance of their appointment letters. The Constitutional petitions filed by them were allowed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court on 29-4-1999. Relevant para. there from is reproduced hereunder for convenience:

"This brings me to the allied question as to whether the ban could be applied retrospectively and the answer is not very difficult to find. The ban imposed subsequent to the selection could not possibly take away the rights of the petitioners which have already accrued to them and were also finalized nor could it legally cloud the rights afore-stated. The ban could at the best be applied prospectively and that being so, all the cases afore-noted are saved. Needless to add that it was also argued by the petitioners that now that the ban has been recalled and removed, there is no impediment or bar in employing the petitioners who have already been selected. It goes without saying that if the ban is allowed to operate retrospectively thereby nullifying all the steps taken for the selection of a candidate, it would not only erode the confidence of the people in the functionaries of the State but also in the Government itself for the total process of selection, as enumerated above, did raise a legitimate hope in the minds of a candidate that it has the backing of the State and Government and would be fulfilled. This legitimate hope cannot be rendered meaningless by one stroke of pen thereby imposing ban on recruitment retrospectively. A plain reading of the notification whereby ban was imposed would show that it was meant to be prospective, therefore, the same could not be interpreted to apply retrospectively. In the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the grant of mandamus as prayed for." (3). Against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, respondents preferred Intra-Court Appeals, which were allowed on 27-9-1999 in view of a Full Bench judgment of the same Court, date 24-11-1998 in Writ Petition No.13912 of 1998. As such, the appellants approached this Court by filing petitions for leave to appeal. It may be noted that in respect of some of the other employees of the Education Department, High Court accepted their writ petitions with the observation that appointment letters of those employees be issued vide order, dated 20-10-1998. This order was challenged before this Court being C.P. Nos.63-L to 67-L of 1998 and C.P. No.144-L of 1999, in which leave to appeal was granted. In the meanwhile, present appellants also preferred petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the I.C.A. Bench, wherein leave was also granted and directions were made to fix all the cases for hearing together. (4). We have noted that perhaps on account of some inadvertence, the earlier petitions i.e. Petitions No.63-L to 67-L of 1998 and 144-L of 1999 converted into Appeals Nos.720 to 725 of 1999 were fixed for hearing separately and disposed of by a learned Full Bench of this Court on 2-11-2001. In pursuance of the said judgment, order of the High Court, dated 20-10-1998 was maintained. Relevant paragraphs there-from are reproduced hereunder:

"(3) It is not necessary to give an authoritative pronouncement on the points noticed in the leave granting order. We would suffice by observing that admittedly the respondents were selected on merit after complying with all the formalities prescribed under the relevant Rules and formality of issuing letters of appointment was only to be observed when the Government of Punjab, Education Department, vide its letter No.PS/ES/860/97, dated 22-2-1997 directed that no further appointment letters in the Education Department be issued until further orders. In consequence, no formal letters of appointment were issued in favour of the respondents but they continued in service firstly, as mandated by the High Court and thereafter through the leave granting order, dated 22-4-1999. It is on record that the respondents are. continuing in service for the last more than four years under the orders of High Court as well as this Court. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to do complete justice between the parties we deem it appropriate not to disturb the status quo at this stage. (4) Needless to observe that the question whether the grievance raised herein relates to terms and conditions of civil servants, which could only be resolved by the appropriate Service Tribunal will be attended to in some appropriate proceedings. The interest of justice warrants no interference insofar as the continuance of the respondents in the service of the appellant-Department is concerned. The appellant-Department is, therefore, directed to issue appointment letters to the respondents forthwith, if not already issued." (5). Mr. Abdul Wahid Chaudhry, learned, Advocate Supreme Court contended that in another identical set of appeals being Civil Appeals Nos.21, 22, 770 to 780 of 1999 same relief has been given to the appellants by a Full Bench of this Court, who were also duly selected against available vacancies but on account of notification, dated 22-2-1997 imposing ban on recruitments, their appointment letters could not be issued. When we confronted learned, Assistant Advocate-General with the above-noted decisions and called her to explain as to whether different view can be taken in the instant cases when the question involved in all the cases is identical namely whether the Government had an authority to withhold the appointment letters on account of ban imposed despite the fact that they were duly selected on merit according to rules. She could not answer satisfactorily except stating that previous decisions were not in the knowledge of respondents.- We are afraid, contention so raised by her is not correct because a perusal of the judgments in the above-noted cases indicates that Government of Punjab was duly represented through Additional Advocate-General.Be that as it may, we have examined the cases of the appellants. In view of the observations of this Court in judgment, dated 2-11-2001 announced in Civil Appeals Nos.720 to 725 of 1999, cases of appellants are not, in any manner, different from the cases which have already been decided by this. Court. Therefore, following the same reasons, instant appeals have to be allowed, in view of the principle of consistency. (7). Thus, for the foregoing reasons these appeals are allowed, impugned judgment of the I.C.A. Bench, dated 27-9-1999 is set aside and judgment of the High Court in writ petitions, dated 29-4-1999 is restored. Respondents are directed to issue appointment letters of the appellants for the posts against which they were selected forthwith. No orders as to costs. M.H./M-94/SC Appeal allowed.