2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The petitioner had applied for direct appointment as Inspector in the Income Tax Department pursuant to an advertisement in the press and on the basis of written test and interview conducted by the Selection Committee was declared to stand at Sr. No.17 in the merit list. However, the candidates selected were not given appointment letter and some of them approached this Court through C.P. No. D-853 of 2002, which was allowed by order dated 5-11-2005 and the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner in their respective order of merits upon vacancies arises for direct recruitment in accordance with rules. Some other candidates subsequently approached this Court vide C.P. No.705 of 2003 and it was conceded on behalf of the respondents that the principle laid down in the earlier petitions was being followed whereupon the petition was held to have fructified and the Department was directed to cause appointment on merit on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee.

2. Nevertheless it appears that while petitioners in the two above mentioned petitions (including some whose names appeared below the petitioner in the merit list) were appointed, no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. It has been urged that the petitioner's position was identical to that of those in the two earlier petitioner and he is entitled to the 'same kind of treatment. Both learned DAG and Mr. S.M. Iqbal Shah have opposed this petition on the ground of latches. Indeed laches may be a good ground for refusing discretionary relief, which is normally granted when the petitioner approaches the Court within a reasonable time. In service matters, however, where rights and regulations are regulated by statutory rules, the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court however, seems to be slightly different. In Hameed Akhter Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCMR 1185), the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decided a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of civil servant who litigated, but also others, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment may also be extended to other civil servants who may not be parties to the' litigation. It may also be observed that once relief had extended to the petitioners in C.P. No. D-705/2002 on the basis of a categorical statement on the part of the learned counsel then appearing for the respondents, that the principle laid down in C.P. No.853/2002 was being followed, the petitioner could legitimately expect that he would be appointed on the basis of the same principle and wait for some time thereafter. Therefore, it is difficult to assert that the petitioner slept over the case.

3. For the forgoing reasons respectfully following the dictum laid down in the Hameed Akhtar Niazi's case we would allow this petition and direct the respondents to effect appointment of the petitioner whenever a vacancy for direct recruitment arises. H.B.T./S-62/K Petition allowed.