2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ZUBDA- TUL-HUSSAIN, J.

The Writ Petitions Nos.2100 of 2008 and 2099 of 2008 being the outcome of the same circumstances shall be disposed of by this single order.

2. Pursuant to an advertisement for the recruitment of the posts of Vaccinator and Dispenser, the petitioners submitted their applications for the respective posts for which they qualified for appointment. After necessary proceedings including the test and interview they were selected on merit. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.2100 of 2008 were given appointments as Vaccinators while the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2099 of 2008 were appointed as Dispensers. They joined their respective duties but when the concerned office submitted their salary bills to the District Accounts Officer, Rahim Yar Khan i.e. the respondent No.4, he turned down the same with the following four objections:

"(1) The appointees did not join their duties within the stipulated period of 15 days. (2) The appointment orders were not received in the office by Dak. (3) PIERA Forms and all educational certificates and NOC may please be furnished. (4) The appointment orders are not signed by the Appointing Authority (D.C.O.)."

3. In the comments submitted by respondent No. 1 it has, however, been stated that the appointments were made by the District Selection Committee notified by the Government of the Punjab in the Recruitment Policy, 2004 consisting of the E.D.O. (Health), E.D.O. F&B and D.O. (Coordination), D.O. (Health) and the representatives of the Government, whereas by virtue of the notification issued by the Local Government and Rural Development, Government of the Punjab on 18-4-2002, the Selection Committee was constituted for the purpose consisting of D.C.O. as Chairman and E.D.O., F&B, E.D.O.(R) and D.O. (Coordination) as Members. The learned A.A.-G. as well as the representatives from the office of the E.D.O. (Health) Rahim Yar Khan both have thus, contended that appointments were not regular and that to remove the objections the case was referred to the D.C.O. Rahim Yar Kan for regularization of the appointments who in turn forwarded the same to the Health Department' where the matter is still precipitating.

4. The facts and circumstances and perusal of the record clearly show that the Committee was no doubt once constituted by the Local Government and Rural Development in the year 2002 but nobody took notice of the fact that the policy issued by the Government of the Punjab in the year 2004, superseded earlier arrangements so far as they were inconsistent with the Recruitment Policy of 2004. While formulating Recruitment Policy in 2004, the Government of the Punjab also specifically constituted Recruitment Committees for recruitments at various level. The District Recruitment Committee so constituted, was the one which conducted the process of recruitments and selected the petitioners for appointments. It may pertinently note that the Recruitment Committee which selected the petitioners for appointments was constituted in the Recruitment Policy, 2004 issued under the orders of the Chief Minister, Punjab. Thus, for all intents and purposes it had overridden any other Recruitment Committee previously in existence especially when the Chief Minister, Punjab himself is the Authority to make the rules for the recruitments.

5. Thus the Recruitment Committee which selected the petitioners for appointments was certainly competent to conduct the process of their recruitments. .

6. The position of the Recruitment Committee has been dilated upon only because this aspect had been dealt with by the respondent No.1 in the comments submitted in the Court. But it seems that parties have sidelined the real points at issue. The recruitments of the petitioners through the Selection Committee which made the selection is in fact not disputed. The objections of the District Account Officer are neither with regard to the constitution of the Committee nor against its competence for carrying out the recruitment process. Four objections of the District Accounts Officer have already been reproduced in the above. The question of their failure to join the duties, the sending of the appointments orders by post to the District Accounts Officer, the provisions of the relevant documents and the signing of the appointment orders are the matters which have nothing to do with the constitution of the Selection Committee. All these objections meted to and could be dealt with at local level by the Authority competent in that behalf.

7. The Selection Committee could only make its recommendation and if the Chairman of the Committee was not the Appointing Authority it had to send its recommendation to the Appointing Authority for the necessary orders. What caused the problem was the failure on the part of the D.C.O., (if he is the Appointing Authority) to dispose of the matter at his own is level. There was no need on his part to forward the case to the Health Department, Government of the Punjab. And in case he was not the Appointing Authority he ought to have forwarded it to the concerned Appointing Authority instead of the Health Department of Government of the Punjab.

8. The petitioners were allowed to join the duties and they are performing their functions since then. Having performed their duties they are certainly entitled to the salary as well. It cannot be disputed that the salary is not a State bounty but it is a right of the incumbents who are performing their duties against their appointments. The formal objections or the failure on the part of the concerned authority to remove such objections is not the fault of the petitioners. The nature of the objections raised by the District Accounts Office is such that they are to be dealt with and decided by the Appointing Authority itself and it goes without saying that the sooner a decision is taken in this behalf the better it is.

9. Regarding the objection that the appointees failed to join the duties within the stipulated time, suffice would it be to say that as the petitioners had been allowed to join the duties it shall be presumed that the competent authority relaxed the condition or extended the joining time in favour of the petitioners. The dispatch and receipt of the appointment orders by post in the District Accounts Officer was the matter of procedure and where the genuineness of the appointment orders is not disputed by the concerned authority, the District Accounts Officer should also recognize/accept the appointment orders for further, proceeding in relation to sanction of the salary bills.

10. The documents etc. mentioned in the objection No.3, I am told, that the same have already been provided and if there is any such deficiency, the same can be removed at the level of the concerned office where the petitioners are performing their duties.

11. As for the signing of the appointment letters by the D.C.O. it is of course true that the Selection Committee could only recommend the names of the selectees and it was for the Appointing Authority to finally pass the orders for their appointment but the pertinent fact is that the petitioners joined their duties in December, 2007 and objections to their pay bills were raised in January, 2008 and since then the matter had come to the notice of the competent authority which did not proceed to rescind the appointment letters. Hence even if the E.D.O. Health is not the Appointing Authority, it shall be deemed that the actual Appointing Authority if it was other than the E.D.O. (Health), had acquiesced to the genuineness of the appointments and if this situation is lasting for about 10/11 months, no doubt can at all be raised to the genuineness of the appointments. The appointment letters in such a situation have full legal force for the rights claimed by the petitioners.

12. In the above perspective all the four objections of the District Accounts Officer shall be deemed to he unnecessary, non-existent and ineffective against the petitioners and their salary bills.

13. For the above circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondent No.4 is directed to process the salary bills of the petitioners and sanction their payment to the petitioners within a period of 30 days. The formalities, if any, required in this behalf shall also be fulfilled by the concerned authority in due course of time. S.A.K./I-50/L Petition accepted.