2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

This is a writ petition, whereby, petitioners have sought the following remedy:- "It is therefore humbly prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the merit list to meet the ends of justice please."

2. It is not disputed that respondents Nos.1 to 4 sought applications from suitable candidates for the posts of Elementary School Teacher (BPS-14) and as the result of the same, petitioner also appeared among other candidates and qualified the required test and interview, falling in serial No.17 in the merit list, prepared by respondents Nos.1 to 4.

3. Although respondents Nos.1 to 4 did not disclose the number of vacant posts for which the test/interview was being conducted, but petitioner came to know that such vacant posts were 17 in number. After preparation of merit list, respondents Nos.1 to 4 issued appointment orders of some of the candidates who qualified the written test and interview while placed petitioner in serial No.1 in the waiting list. About a year after issuance of the said list, petitioner came to know that respondents Nos.1 to 4 appointed 15 persons out of the waiting list without conducting any test or interview etc. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 did so in violation of the normal norms of recruitment to the posts of BPS-14 and also displayed flagrant disparity regarding the suit appointment.

4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 are the Government officials while respondents Nos.5 to 7 are the persons who were appointed in violation of the normal norms of recruitment. Learned Assistant Advocate General and the representative for respondents Nos.2 to 4 argued that respondents Nos.5 to 7 were appointed on 15-05-2011 and have been promoted to the suit posts as and when their promotion became due. On the other hand learned counsel for petitioner argued that the posts advertised through the suit advertisement were necessarily to be filled in through direct recruitment and not through promotion etc. Learned Assistant Advocate General and representative for respondents Nos.2 to 4 had no reply when they were specifically questioned that the posts numbering 17 were necessarily to be filled in through direct recruitment and petitioner genuinely qualified for one of the said post, as he was placed in serial No.17 in the merit list and was placed at Serial No.1 in the waiting list. Copies of the documents filed with the petition are undisputedly genuine, therefore, we mark the merit list as Exh.C/A and waiting list as Exh.C/B. The said two documents clearly contained names of respondents Nos.5 to 7 which is sufficient proof of the fact that respondents Nos.5 to 7 appeared in the test and interview as they knew that said posts were to be filled in through direct recruitment. The representative for respondents Nos.2 to 4 and the learned Assistant Advocate General failed to give any satisfactory reply to the said question. We have further noted that name of respondent No.5 appears at serial No.17, name of respondent No.6 appears at serial No.29 and name of respondent No.7 appears at serial No.20 in Exh.C/B. Exh.C/B is the waiting list and obviously petitioner is at serial No.1 of the said list and respondents Nos.1 to 4 have very wrongly appointed serial No.17, serial No.20 and serial No.29, leaving out the petitioner.

5. We, therefore, hold that appointment of Respondents Nos.5 to 7 is either result of foul play on the parts of respondents Nos.1 to 4 or is the result of open disparity. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct respondents Nos.1 to 4 for appointing petitioner as an Elementary School Teacher (BPS-14). We further direct respondents Nos.1 to 4 for issuing the appointment order of petitioner w.e.f. a date showing him senior to the respondents Nos.5 to

7. Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to all back benefits of salary and declared as senior to the respondents Nos.5 to

7. Respondent No.1 is free to initiate disciplinary action against respondents Nos.2 to 4, who obviously caused damage to the State Treasury by showing favour to the respondents Nos.5 to

7. Petition allowed accordingly. This file is consigned to record. ZC/37/GB Petition allowed.