1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Brief facts relevant to the disposal of the present writ petition are that requisition for recruitment against two temporary vacancies of Assistant Directors, Labour Welfare was sent to Punjab Public Service Commission on 12th March, 1981: The posts were advertised by the Commission. After holding examination and inter views the Commission recommended Mr. Khair Muhammad Budh and Muhammad Iqbal in order of the priority in which their names have been mentioned. Mr. Khair Muhammad was given the appointment whereas Mr. Muhammad Iqbal could not be appointed on account of the fact, that meanwhile Mr. Fasahat Rehman Khan, Assistant Director, Labour Welfare who was earlier removed from service was reinstated and allowed to resume duty against one of the above‑mentioned posts, under an order passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 19th January, 1982. The petitioner in view of the above development could not be accommodated due to non‑availability of the post.

2. A new post of Assistant Director, Labour Welfare was created by Government, on 1st July, 1983. The petitioner pressed his claim against the newly‑created post of Assistant Director, Labour Welfare but could not succeed for the reason that recommendations .made by the Commission were considered valid for a period of twelve months only under paras. 2.12 and 2.13 of the procedure to be observed by the Administrative Departments, etc. in their dealings with the Commis sion contained in SGA&ID's letter No. SVII. 10‑65/57, dated 29th, January, 1964 and thereafter the posts were to be filled up on the basis of fresh recommendations of the Commission. As the name of the petitioner was recommended by Commission on 29th April, 1982 and the post against which he could be accommodated was already filled in by Mr. Fasahat Rehman Khan resuming duty, the petitioner could only be considered for the new post created on 1st July, 1983 on the basis of fresh recommendations of the Commission.

3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the refusal of the department to appoint him against the newly‑created post on the basis of earlier recommendations of Punjab Public Service Commission on the ground that refusal of the department is without lawful authority in so far as the recommendations once made by the Commission remain valid and are considered binding upon the department. Post created on 1st July, 1983, therefore, cannot be re‑adver tised through Public Service Commission and can only be offered to the present petitioner on the basis of the recommendations of the Commis sion according to which he was placed at No. 2 of the merit list.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ‑Assistant Advocate‑General, Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan who represented the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had been earlier recommended by the Commission against the two temporary posts of Assistant Directors, Labour Welfare and since he could not be appointed to one post despite the fact of his. having been recommended, for it due to re instatement of Mr. Fasahat Rehman Khan, he is .entitled now to be considered as a matter of right for a new post created on 1st July, 1983 on the basis of earlier recommendation. There is no need in law for fresh recommendations from the Commission in respect of the new post. Respondent No. 1, it was contended, is bound under the law to offer the appointment letter to the petitioner in respect of the post of Assistant Director, Labour Welfare.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents however in view of paras. 2.12 and 2.13 of the procedure laid down for observance by the Administra tive Department in their dealings with Commission contained in SGA&ID's letter No. SVIL 10‑65/57; dated 29th January, 1964, has contended that the recommendations once made cannot last longer_ than twelve months and thereafter fresh recommendations are required from the Commission in order to induct better and qualified persons in service. In the instant case, learned counsel has contended that since the earlier recommendations were made on 29th April, 1982 which by lapse of time lost efficacy on 28th April, 1983, the petitioner's appointment cannot be ordered on the basis of prior recommendations of the= Commission in respect of the new post which as stated above was sanctioned on .1st July, 1983. Proceeding further, learned counsel has contended that the functions of the Punjab Public Service Commission as outlined under Ordinance 11 of 1978 are purely recommendatory in nature and the peti tioner has no vested right to seek appointment in service of the Province on the basis of recommendations of the Commission alone. He has relied upon the case of Dr. Habib‑ur‑Rehman v. West Pakistan Public Service Commission, Lahore and 4 others (P L D 1973 S C 144) to contend that the nature of the recommendations are purely advisory and the ultimate decision rests with the competent authority only. It hag been contended that the recommendations cannot be held as sacrosanct.

6. As shown in the preceding paragraph the recommendations of the Commission related to two posts of Assistant Director, Labour Wel fare. One of the posts was occupied by Mr. Khair Muhammad Budh on the basis of his merit. Second post could,‑ not be given to the present petitioner as Mr. Fasahat Rehman Khan who had been removed from service was ordered to be reinstated by the Punjab Service Tribunal. A new temporary post was created by the department on 1st July, 1983. This post could not be given to the petitioner for obvious reasons that period of twelve months had elapsed since first recommen dations were received. Recommendations once made cannot be allowed to form the basis for recruitment in service for all times to come. Eve otherwise as stated above the petitioner had no vested right to the appointment which had to be made by the competent authority, taking into consideration variety of factors relating to the suitability etc. of the candidates. The petitioner, therefore, cannot lay a vested claim to the newly‑created post on the basis of the earlier recommendation of the Commission.

7. Finding myself in disagreement with the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner I proceed to dismiss the petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A. E. Writ refused.