2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.

Rao Abdul Hannan Khan, the petitioner has challenged Order; bearing No.E.B./DOR126, dated nil, passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Bahawalpur, respondent No.3, by which he had appointed respondent No.4, Arslan Mansoor, against post of Naib Qasid. Explaining the facts of the case learned counsel for the petitioner submits that District Officer (Revenue), Bahawalpur had appointed Arslan Mansoor, respondent No.4, as Naib Qasid in his office upon the recommendation of Departmental Recruitment Committee, vide order, dated 17-3-2005. This appointment was made out of 20 quota, reserved for the children of Government employees. The above-noted order was challenged through Writ Petition No.2121 of 2005 (Rao Abdul Hamlan Khan v. District Officer, Coordination, Bahawalpur and others). The aforesaid writ petition was decided by this Court on 22-12-2005, in which it was directed that respondents shall appoint the petitioner, if he was found eligible at No.1, amongst the candidates who had applied for that post after keeping in view of merit of the eligible candidates. Afterwards, instead of appointing the writ petitioner to the above-noted post, Arslan Mansoor, was again posted through the impugned order which has been clarified to have been passed on 18-1-2006, hence this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Arslan Mansoor was involved in a criminal case, registered with Police Station, City Bahawalpur (vide F.I.R. No.88 of 2005 under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and with sections 377/511 of the P.P.C. On 8-3-2005, he was remanded to judicial prison. At the time of interview, he was not present, therefore, his appointment order and recommendation could not made by the concerned officer or by the Departmental Recruitment Committee. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that respondent No.4, had not joined the above-noted post within prescribed time and had thus, lost his entitlement. He has referred to ground No.2, submitted by the District Officer (Revenue), Bahawalnagar in para-wise reply and comments. Even then, respondent No.4, has been appointed which appointment is against merit, rules and policy of Government.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that as this appointment was being made under rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, therefore, appearance of the petitioner was not necessary at the time of interview. According to the learned counsel, father of respondent No.4 had got 35 years, 8 months and 12 days service to his score while father of writ petitioner had completed service of 34 years, 11 months and 15 days only. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that ,respondent No.4 was at serial No.1 in merit list while the petitioner was at serial No.4, therefore, appointment of respondent No.4 was correctly made.

4. Learned A.A.-G, has submitted that appointment order of Arslan Mansoor, was cancelled as he had not joined his duty within the prescribed period. So the right/entitlement to join the post afterward was lost by respondent No.4, therefore, appointment of respondent No.4 was not correctly made in accordance with law.

5. After considering the arguments of learned counsel and from the perusal of the record, I have, found that respondent No.4, Arslan Mansoor was in. jail at the time of interview, as has been narrated by the learned counsel and found from the record, attached with this writ petition. Therefore, his appointment order could not be made. However, the aforesaid respondent No.4 was given another chance and was asked to join the service but he had not joined the same within the prescribed period, therefore, right to be appointed or to remain on above-noted post was rightly withdrawn as pointed out by the learned A.A.-G. Accordingly by accepting his writ petition, the impugned order is declared as illegal and unlawful, consequently, a direction is issued to respondents Nos.1 and 3 to issue appointment letter in favour of writ petitioner for the above-noted post. H.B.T./A-241/L Petition accepted.