1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The facts leading to the institution of the present Constitutional petition are that Administrator, Town Committee, Peer Mahal, District Toba Tek Singh/respondent No.1 advertised in the press on 22‑2‑1995 for the posts of Octroi Inspector, Octroi Clerk, Junior Clerk, Court Clerk, Library Clerk, Chowkidar, Beldar and LHV and the applications were to be received till 2‑3‑1995. The petitioner applied for the post of Octroi Inspector. It is alleged that the petitioner is working as Octroi Clerk in Town Committee, Peer Mahal since 25‑2‑1988, though on temporary basis as contended by the respondents.

2. The petitioner duly appeared in the interview and although he had highest merit, it is alleged that instead of appointing the petitioner, the District Recruitment Committee, Toba Tek Singh under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh, recommended the name of respondent No.4 for the appointment to the post of Octroi Inspector.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the original merit list prepared by the Administrator, Town Committee, Peer Mahal, petitioner's merit was at No. 1‑‑and he has been illegally ignored by the District Recruitment Committee.

4. The Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District Recruitment Committee Toba Tek Singh has also submitted his comments and alongwith the comments he has attached the merit list which shows that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 who has been recommended for appointment by the District Recruitment Committee possess same qualification but in interview the petitioner has been awarded 8 marks whereas respondent No.4 has been awarded 13 marks.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully argued that while making this merit list, the District Recruitment Committee ignored the recruitment policy as contained in SOR 19/2‑32, dated 14‑4‑1992 issued by the Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, according to which 10 marks are to, be given to a person who has an experience of 3 years, whereas, the petitioner has an experience of more than 7 years.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Ko.4 has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as Octroi Inspector as his service record is very poor and he was suspended many times.

7. The Chief Officer, to a Committee, Peer Mahal/respondent No.2, Present in Court, in an answer to the quaere of the Court, has stated that although the petitioner was placed under suspension for some time previously, but, at the moment, neither he is under suspension nor any inquiry is pending against him and has frankly conceded before this Court that the recruitment policy as contained in the above said memo. dated 14‑4‑1992 was not fully complied with in the recruitment of respondent No.4 because the petitioners experience was ignored and he was not awarded 10 marks for his experience while preparing the merit list.

8. The abovementioned shows that the District Recruitment Committee acted illegally while preparing the merit list and while recommending the name of respondent No.4 for the appointment as Octroi Inspector in Town Committee, Peer Mahal by ignoring the experience of the petitioner and by not awarding 10 marks to him for his experience. Had this been done, the petitioner's merit would have shown much higher in the merit list than that of respondent No.4 in spite of the fact that the petitioner obtained 5 less marks than respondent No.4 in

9. Writ petition, is therefore, accepted and the recommendation dated 10‑7‑1995 of District Recruitment Committee, Toba Tek Singh only to the extent of recommendation of appointment of respondent No.4 as Octroi Inspector is declared to be illegal and of no legal effect. Consequently, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to make fresh appointment of Octroi Inspector after inviting the applications for the post afresh from the general public through advertisement in the press and the fresh appointment shall be made purely on merit in accordance with the merit policy as contained in law, rules and regulations. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. A.A./T-3/L Order accordingly.