SALMAN ADIL SIDDIQUI and others vs PROVINCE OF SINDH and others

ORDER

1. ' The Provincial Government had requisitioned certain posts of lecturers in different disciplines and test and interviews were conducted by the respondent No,3 i,e, Sindh Public Service Commission.

2. Advertisement for test and interviews issued in June, 2005. The selection process was completed in June, 2006 and a list of 91 successful candidates was released to the press and communicated to the Education Department Government of Sindh. The petitioners' grievance is that despite having been selected for appointment in the normal manner i,e, through the Public Service Commission, they have not been issued appointment letters. .

2. The respondent No,3 Sindh Public Service 'Conunission, have not contested the petitioners claim.

3. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 Provincial Government have only asserted that the recommendations of the respondent No,3 were forwarded with a summary to the competent authority, but no orders have been passed so far. They have claimed that in the absence of such orders "there is no surety for appointment". With profound respects, we are unable to uphold the view that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission are meant to be utterly meaningless unless approval is accorded by the appointing authority at his sweet will and pleasure in his own time.

4. Though such recommendations may not create the strict vested right at least they give rise to a legitimate expectation and it is well-settled that the commendations of such a body ordained by the Constitution cannot be brushed aside except for very good reasons as repeatedly held by the superior Courts. One may conveniently refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Manthar Ali Jatoi v. Government of Sindh 1998 PLC (C.S.) 344, which we are bound to follow. The second important and most disturbing aspect of the case is that once the recommendations of the Commission were available with the Department way hack in June, 2006, an appropriate order in terms thereof or rejecting them for valid and proper reasons ought to have been passed within a reasonable time. Any authority endowed with the performance of public duties cannot neglect to perform its duties indefinitely as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Chairman Regional Transport Authority v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company PLD 1991 SC 14, where it was held that a public duty must be (sic) Commission would have been reasonable but there seems absolutely no justification for delaying the matter for about 15 months which has caused hum not only to the petitioners but even to the cause of education in the whole Province. For the foregoing reasons, we would allow this petition and direct that the decision on a summary be taken within one month from today and in case no decision is effected, all the recommendees would be deemed to have been duly appointed with effect from the date of the expiry of period of one month. Copy of this order be provided to A.A.-G. Abdul Jabbar Lakho.