1997 PLC (C (PLP)

The following writ petitions which involve identical, questions of law and facts, will be disposed of by this order:‑‑ (i) Writ Petition No. 501/96, Riasat Ali v. Deputy Commissioner, Kasur etc. (ii)Writ Petition No. 502/96, Muhammad Ilyas v. Deputy Commissioner, Kasur etc. (iii) Writ Petition No. 900/96 Muhammad Aslam v Deputy Commissioner, Kasur etc. (iv) Writ Petition No. 383/96, Mustafa Rana v. Deputy Commissioner, Kasur etc.

2. Riasat Ali, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 501/96 is an Octroi Inspector in the service of Town Committee, Phool Nagar. He applied for the post of Octroi Superintendent in the Town Committee. Muhammad Ilyas who is petitioner in Writ Petition No. 502/96 is an Octroi Clerk in the service of Town Committee, Phool .Nagar. He applied for being appointed as Head Clerk. Muhammad Aslam who is petitioner in Writ Petition No. 900/96 is a Naib Qasid. Being a matriculate, he applied for the post of Octroi Clerk/Adda Clerk. Mustafa Rana who is petitioner in Writ Petition No. 383/96 is an Octroi Clerk and he applied for the post of Head Clerk. 3 It is complained in the above writ petitions that the posts referred to above were required to be filled in through promotion under the Punjab Local Government Civil Service (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983. However, disregarding the service rules some other persons have been appointed through initial recruitment and the petitioners' claim for promotion has been totally ignored.

4. In the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District Recruitment Committee, an objection has been taken that the petitioners have alternate remedy to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 13(A) of the Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1969. Mr. Muhammad Arif Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Town Committee has also taken the same position. He submits that these petitions are not maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedy.

5. Rana Muhammad Arif, Advocate who represents the petitioners in all the four writ petitions has stated that his clients are prepared to have adjudication of the dispute from the appellate forum in the first instance and would not press these petitions. However, he has shown his apprehension that the Deputy Commissioner who is to decide the appeal has appointed other candidates against the aforesaid posts in his capacity as Chairman, District Recruitment Committee and, therefore, he may not be able to decide the appeal with unbiased mind. Notwithstanding this apprehension, he has offered that his clients are ready to avail the remedy of appeal provided a direction is issued to the learned appellate authority that he will decide the appeals purely on merits without being influenced by the fact that he recruited the respondents against the said vacancies. He has further submitted that the copies of these writ petitions may be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner Kasur so that the same may be treated as appeals and decide within one month. This is a reasonable request which has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the Town Committee.

6. For what has been discussed above, the copies of the aforesaid four writ petitions shall be transmitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, who shall treat the same as service appeals. These appeals shall be decided within the next six weeks after affording full opportunity of hearing to the persons who have since been appointed against the posts in question. Needless to say that the learned appellate authority while deciding the appeals shall not in any way be influenced by the fact that he himself had made recommendations for appointments against the posts in question on the executive side. He will decide the appeals purely on merits and strictly in accordance with law.

7. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./R‑15/L Order accordingly.