2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

This appeal with leave of the court entails the facts, that the recruitment process of the employees in BPS-1 to 5 and 7 was initiated for District Chiniot and an advertisement dated 18-10-2009 in this regard was duly published in the newspapers with the requisite eligibility/qualifications. Respondents participated in the process of selection and they were appointed, and the letters of appointment were also issued to them on 7-4-2010. However, about 1-1/2 months thereafter, such appointments were cancelled on the ground/reasoning that the process of selection was non-transparent and was fraudulent etc.; thus constraining the respondents to file a writ petition before the learned High Court challenging the letters of termination. The learned High Court vide judgment dated 19-6-2013 has allowed the writ petition and declared that the letters of termination are not in accordance with law, but at the same time vide paragraph No.25 directed as follows:

"

25. For reasons recorded above, the termination letters/orders issued by the respondents are set aside. Keeping in view the concerns expressed on behalf of the respondents, in the interest of justice and with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are directed to re-process the cases of the petitioners by adopting the following procedures:

(a) A Committee shall be constituted consisting of fair, impartial and sufficiently senior officers within seven days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The committee shall hold its first meeting within 15 days thereafter. The Committee shall individually examine the case of each petitioner after granting him a meaningful hearing. (b) In case any of the petitioners has submitted a fake document, there is any criminal case pending against him, is not a resident of the area for which recruitments were made or otherwise does not meet the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement on the basis of which he was appointed, such petitioner shall not be inducted into service. All other petitioners shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with effect from the date on which their services were terminated. However, their three years contract shall commence from the date on which they are directed to take charge. (c) The committee shall conclude its work within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of its first meeting. (d) The petitioners have voluntarily and of their own free will agreed to give up and forego any claim for back benefits of any nature. (e) The cases of the petitioners shall be considered for regularization on the same criteria as other similarly placed employees at the appropriate time. (f) All the petitioners shall appear before the Executive District Officer (R), Chiniot, provide him their latest addresses and contact numbers for the purpose of being summoned to appear before the Committee." Undoubtedly such order passed by the learned High Court is absolutely valid and it has been left to the department itself to scrutinize/examine the eligibility of the respondents those who pass the test would be retained as employees by applying the rule of locus poenitentiae, notwithstanding that there was some irregularity in the process of selection, may be on account of one of the members, who is said to have acted as an appointing authority was not competent to sit in the same meeting. Whereas those who are not eligible or qualified shall go. This is for the department now to act fairly in terms of the direction of the learned High Court and take further action.

2. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, we direct that the re-process of selection, as has been mandated by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment, may be completed within a period of two months without fail, otherwise the delinquents shall be taken to task. C.M.A. 1738-L of 2013:

3. As we have decided the appeal, this application is rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed; however, let the applicant(s) of this application move to the concerned authority which have to re-process the matter in the light of the verdict of the High Court about the retention or otherwise of those who were the petitioners before High Court and it is for that authority to see if the applicant(s) can also be given the benefit of the impugned judgment in terms of law laid down in Hameed Akthar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCMR 1185). MWA/G-5/SC Order accordingly.