2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This judgment will dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 6592, 1,9549 and 19569 of 1997, 24671, 22780, 22736, 25394, 1019, 1668, 1669, 2433, 26130, 22682,2394,443, 24672,24673,24674, 24675, 24676,1416, 1417, 1418, 26470, 26472, 26473, 26474, 415, 21579, 26121, 26122, 26123, 26124, 417 and 416 of 1998 as common questions of fact and law are involved therein.

2. The petitioners in all the petitions noted above had applied for different posts in the months of January and February, 1997 which, according to the advertisement in the national dailies of the country, were lying vacant in the domain and under the control of the respondents and were required to be filled by them. It was after necessary preliminaries wherein the petitioners' testimonials as to qualification etc were scrutinized, they were interviewed by the duly constituted selection committees and were selected as per the merit lists displayed by the respondents on the notice board meant for the purpose. The said merit lists were displayed on various dates but definitely before the issuance of the Notification dated 22‑2‑1997 whereby ban was imposed on new recruitment. According to the petitioners, they were neither issued appointment letters nor were allowed to join the posts because of the ban aforenoted and since the respondents remained adamant in their attitude, therefore, the petitions seeking mandamus That the respondents be directed to issue the appointment letters for the posts for which the petitioners had been selected as per the merit lists. Reliance was placed on a D.B. Judgment of this Court rendered in "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education; Multan v. Baqir Ali Tatari and another (I.C.A. No: 144 of 1997) as also the earlier judgment of mine rendered in the case of "Asghar Ali v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore" (W.P No.32Sof 1998). .3. Report and parawise comments have been filed and perused. The petitions aforenoted are resisted on the grounds that the recruitment could not be finalised because of the ban imposed vide Notification No. PS/ES/860/97, dated 22‑2‑1997. As far the plea that the petitioners were qualified and as such interviewed and selected and that the merit lists in that regard were also displayed by the respondents the same were admitted with the rider that since the appointment letters itself were not issued, therefore, no right was created in favour of the petitioners. The added objection was that of laches as the majority of the cases had been filed a good one year later and in some cases even when almost two years had elapsed. It may also be noted that in the meanwhile a Full Bench judgment had also been rendered by this Court whereby the authority of the Government to impose ban was upheld.

4. The question of laches may not detain me any longer for Writ Petitions Nos. 6592 of 1997 and W.P No. 19549 of 1997 as also W.P. No.19572 of 1997 were filed immediately after the selection and imposition of ban. Since the question as to whether the display of merit list is the final step in so far as selection of a candidate is concerned and the ancillary question as to whether the ban could be applied retrospectively had already been entertained; therefore, writ petitions filed later in time would not cause any prejudice to any one for the answer to the two questions noted above would be of general application. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to "Jaffar Khan v. Settlement Commissioner and another" PLD 1974 Kar. ; As far the rule laid down in Full Bench judgment that the Government had the authority to impose ban on the recruitment, suffice it to say that there is no cudgel with the proposition that the Government has such an authority nor the question itself is involved in the case muchless raised by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand, is to the effect that the merit lists having been displayed, the selection was complete, therefore, the ban could not be applied retrospectively as no locus poenitentiae was left with the respondents to retrace their steps so as to annul the process of selection already completed. The argument raised by the learned Additional Advocate‑General was to the effect that the ban having been imposed and the Government having been held to have the authority to impose the same, the respondent functionaries could not be said to have acted illegally in refusing appointment to the petitioners and their action as such could not be nullified by issuing a writ of mandamus thereby directing them to employ the petitioners.

5. Coming to the main question, it would be seen that the process of selection starting from inviting applications from various candidates did culminate with the display of merit lists which were displayed after the verification of education qualification of the candidates and their interview i.e. steps required for the selection as enumerated in the discipline meant for the posts. Indeed a right had been created in favour of the petitioners by display of the merit lists and there was no locus poenitentiae left with the respondents to retrace their steps. It is no doubt true that the authority passing or making the order has the power to recall, modify or cancel the same but the said power is subject to one exception that where the order has taken legal effect and in pursuance thereof certain rights have been created in favour of any individual. such an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of those rights. In the instant case it would be seen that the petitioners having been interviewed were declared successful and merit lists in regard thereto were displayed on the notice board. The respondents could have retraced their steps till such time that the merit lists had left the folds of their office. Once it is displayed, it has been made public thereby creating right in favour of the selectees and the respondents' power to retrace their steps had been taken away by the law. The plea that the merit list could also be challenged by way of an appeal and since the rights of third parties were involved, therefore, the display of the merit lists could not be taken to be final. I am afraid, the plea is without any substance and stands defeated in view of the fact that no such appeal is stated to have been filed nor it is the case of the respondents, hence, it could not be successfully argued that the display of merit lists were not the final steps. In the circumstances, it is but obvious that the issuance of appointment letter is only a consequential step which in the course of events had to be issued and could at best be termed to be ministerial. The selection having been completed for all intents and purposes, it could not be said that any material steps were yet to be taken. This brings me to the allied question as: to whether the ban could be applied retrospectively and the answer is not very difficult to find. The ban imposed subsequent to the selection could not possibly, take away the rights of the petitioners which have already accrued to them and were also finalized nor could it legally cloud the rights aforestated. The ban could at the best be applied prospectively and that being so, all the cases aforenoted are saved. Needless to add that it was also argued by the petitioners that now that the ban has been recalled and removed, there is no impediment or bar in employing the petitioners who have already been selected. It goes without saying that if the ban is allowed to operate retrospectively thereby nullifying all the steps taken for the selection of a candidate, it would not only erode the confidence of the people in the functionaries of the State but also in the Government itself for the total process of selection, as enumerated above, did raise a legitimate hope in the mind of a candidate that it has the backing of the State and Government and would be fulfilled. This legitimate hope cannot be rendered meaningless by one stroke of pen thereby imposing ban on recruitment retrospectively. A plain reading of the notification whereby ban was imposed would show that it was meant to be prospective, therefore, the same could not be interpreted to apply retrospectively. In the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the grant of mandamus as prayed for.

6. For the reasons aforestated, the writ petitions noted above are accepted and the respondents are directed to issue appointment letters to the petitioners forthwith for the posts that they had applied for. There shall however, be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1231/L Petitions accepted.