2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SHOAIB SAEED, J.

Brief facts of the case are that through advertisement dated 27-8-2010 published in the Daily Newspaper Khabrain, Multan, applications for various posts were invited by respondent No.3. At serial No.4 of the said advertisement 20 posts for Sanitary Workers in BS-I were also published. Petitioner applied for the said post and submitted his application. After scrutiny interviews of the applicants/candidates were conducted on 17-9-2010 where-after petitioner was declared as qualified for appointment and his name from the list of 29 candidates was placed at serial No.16.

2. From the afore-referred list 19 candidates were issued appointment letters for the post of sanitary workers, petitioner was ignored. He ran from pillar to post but was finally told that one Shahzad Alam working in TMA as daily wager had moved grievance petition in the Punjab Labour Court No.9 Multan and status quo order was issued in his favour, therefore, one seat of sanitary worker was not vacant/ available, so appointment letter could not be issued to the petitioner.

3. In parawise comments filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 contents of the writ petition were admitted, the only reason given for non-issuance of appointment letter was due to stay order granted by the Labour Court No.9 Multan. Petitioner was already working as daily wager with the respondents and had gained experience, the required qualification in the advertisement.

4. Admittedly, petitioner qualified for the post and was declared eligible for appointment and placed at serial No.16 in the list which is duly signed by various officers/officials of the respondents. Issuing appointment letters to 19 qualified candidates and discriminating/ ignoring petitioner for the reason that one daily wager of the respondents had obtained stay order, therefore, one seat was kept vacant is unjust and contrary to the rights protected under the Constitution. As is evident from the record, stay order was granted to a worker of the respondents who was performing his duty as a water-career whereas petitioner was made eligible for the post of Sanitary Worker, the two posts have no compatibility. Even otherwise the post against which petitioner after undergoing due procedure was selected was published through an advertisement which has no nexus with the order granted by the Labour Court.

5. Withholding of appointment letter of the petitioner is violative of the right accrued to him on account of his selection as an eligible/ qualified/successful candidate. Respondents, themselves, have admitted contents of the writ petition. In view of the same this writ petition is accepted. Respondents are directed to forthwith issue appointment letter to the petitioner and adjust/absorb him against the post to which he qualified. AG/W-1/L Petition allowed.