2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

The petitioner was not recommended on 28-3-2009 in the first set of recommendations of 91 candidates forwarded by the PPSC for appointment to the post of Lecturer (BS17) in the subject of Mathematics. All the posts were not, however, filled because three of the candidates recommended failed to join and accordingly the Administrative Department by letter dated 13-3-2010 requested PPSC to give three other names from the waiting list. In the second set of recommendations which were sent on 20-12-2010 the name of the petitioner figured at Sr.No.94 of the original merit list. However, the respondents declined to appoint the petitioner on the ground that the recommendations of PPSC violated Rule 21-A (4) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. That sub-rule requires the Appointing Authority to clear the process of appointments within 190 days from the date of issuance of recommendation by the PPSC. In the present case the second set of recommendations was issued by the PPSC beyond such period.

2. The PPSC in its parawise comments has taken the view that according to Regulation No.69 of the PPSC Regulations, 2000, original recommendation of the PPSC remains valid for a period of one year, therefore, second request by the Administrative Department was received during the said period, accordingly, second set of recommendations sent to the Administrative Department are legally effective and binding. Learned Additional Advocate-General supports the stand taken by the respondent Administrative Department.

3. A closer scrutiny of facts of the case reveals that the PPSC recommendations were not delayed. It was the Administrative Department that requested for second set of recommendations beyond the period of 190 days. That action triggered the second set of recommendations which were validly submitted according to PPSC Rules and Regulations. For the Administrative. Department to strike down the second set of recommendations for being time-barred on account of Rule 21-A (4) ibid is to hold the PPSC responsible for a default, if any, committed by it. The important point laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the present context is in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Education Department, Peshawar and others v. Qasim Shah (2009 PLC (C.S.) 608) which holds that in a case where qualifying examination forms basis of selection, an Administrative Department should fill all seats that are advertised from the same merit list rather than to retain vacancies to be filled up through second selection process. In the light of the said principle the Administrative Department although acting belatedly had acted lawfully. The recommendation of the petitioner's name on the basis of merit by the PPSC, accordingly, gives him a vested right for demanding his appointment. It is so ordered.

4. Petition allowed. S.A.K./M-5/L Petition accepted.