MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL

Through a public notice which was published in the daily `Jang' on 28-2-1995 applications were invited for appointment to the post of Secretary Union Council. The petitioner' made an application on 2-3-1995. The Departmental Recruitment Committee, however, selected respondents 6 to 8 for the aforesaid posts.

2. The grievance in this petition is that the petitioner had better merit, the appointment of respondents 6 to 8 was made on extraneous considerations, they were overage. It is further averred that the petitioner made a number of applications including application to the Chief Minister of Punjab? on which an inquiry was directed and the then Deputy Commissioner, Narowal submitted report on 23-1-1999 to the Chief Minister Secretariat according to which the name of Muhammad Afzal Khan, respondent No. 8. appeared to have been added by tampering the list later on. It has also, been reported that in the year 1995, recruitment was made in most of the departments on political grounds against an unwritten quota allotted to M.N.A/M.P.As/Candidates of Ruling Party and District Recruitment Committee worked under tremendous political pressure. In the said report it was .recommended that the petitioner may be accommodated on priority basis when a vacancy is available in future: The petitioner has also placed on record photocopy of the minutes of the meeting of the District Recruitment Committee held on 18-3-1995. It only gives out the names of respondents 6 to 8 as selectees for the post in question without indicating any method as to how, the comparative merits of the competing candidates were evaluated.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocates General has opposed this petition. He maintains that respondents 6 to 8 were selected by the District Recruitment Committee and, therefore, no exception could be taken to their appointment.

4. Syed Iqbal Hussain Gillani, Advocate appeared for respondents 7 and 8. He contends that while the appointments were finalized in 1995, this writ petition has been filed in the year 2000 which suffers from laches, it has not been established that the petitioner had ever applied for the job and that the report of the then Deputy Commissioner relied upon by , the petitioner was manipulated after the change of the political Government. As far as the merits of selection of respondents 7 and 8 are concerned; he maintains that respondent No.8, Mohammad Afzal Khan, was a Graduate whereas the petitioner- was F.A. It is next maintained that the respondents are working as Secretary Union Council -for the last about eight years and it will be too harsh to uproot them after such a long period. According to him, illegality, if any, committed by the Recruitment Committee should -not be allowed to operate to their detriment.

5. The submissions made by petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents have been considered. On being questioned, the learned Addl. Advocate-General submits that despite best efforts the record relating to the disputed appointments is not traceable. Therefore, I am proceeding to decide this petition on the existing record. The report of the Deputy Commissioner-(Annex `F') and the minutes of the meeting of the District Recruitment Committee have not been disputed in the parawise comments submitted ,by the then Deputy Commissioner, Narowal and the Assistant Director LG&RD. Perusal of the report dated 23-1-1999 of the then Deputy Commissioner shows that the ,name of Mohammad Afzal, respondent No.8, was added later on by tampering the list and that in 1995. appointments in various departments including the Local Government Department were made on extraneous considerations i.e. unwritten allocation of A quota to the M.N. As and the M.P.As. However, even if the said report of the Deputy Commissioner was ignored, the process of selection , to the posts in question does not appear to have been undertaken in a just, fair and transparent manner., The proceedings of the meeting of the District Recruitment Committee held on 18-3-1995. are reproduced hereunder:--

"PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF DISTRICT RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE; NAROWAL HELD ON 18-3-1995 REGARDING INTERVIEW/APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY UNION COUNCIL IN LG&RD DEPARTMENT NAROWAL.

A meeting of the DRC, Narowal was held on .18-3-1995 at 9.00 a.m in the Committee Room of the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, DRCr. Narowal. The following members of the DRC, Narowal were present in the meeting;

(1) Mian Muhammad Khan Mohal, Deputy Commissioner/ Chairman, DRC, Narowal.

(2) Mr. Sher Afgan Khan,

A.C Narowal/Secretary, DRC, Narowal.

(3) Mr. Azhar Majeed.

ADLG, Narowal/ Member, DRC, Narowal.

(4) The Project Manager (Hqrs) Narowal Member, DRC, Narowal.

According to the scheduled programme the candidates for appointment as Secretary Union Council were interviewed as per list attached (Annex-A). The DRC, Narowal approved/selected the following candidates for appointment as Secretary Union Council in LR&RD Department, Narowal.

Sr. No. Name of the candidate with Address

Parcentage

1. Mr. Arfan Haider son of Resident of Qaseer-e-Qalander E,,

Sh. Daulat Ali Mohallah Khawajgan Narowal City.

2. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Resident of Bari Minhasan, Tehsil son of Khair Din Shakkargarh, District Narowal

3. Muhammad Af:al son of Resident of Kothy, Bara Manga,

Muhammad Anwar Shakargarh

1(Sd.) 2 (Sd.) 3.(Sd.)

ADLG Narowal, AC Narowal/Secretary Deputy

Member (Post of ADC(G) was Commissioner/ vacant at that time) Chairman, DRC,

Narowal

4. (Sd.)

P.M (Hqr),

Narowal/Member.

6. The aforesaid minutes do not indicate any understandable method which was applied by the District Recruitment Committee to evaluate merits of the competing candidates to prefer respondents Nos.6 to 8 to other candidates including the petitioner nor it could be found in the parawise comments submitted by the then Deputy Commissioner and AD&LG. From the perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the District Recruitment Committee, I have no doubt in my mind that respondents No.6 to 8 were appointed by Recruitment Committee in an arbitrary manner. It may be observed that public employment is not bounty of the State and its functionaries to be doled out at whims as was done in this case.

7. As far as the contention on behalf of respondents 7 and 8 that the petition suffers from laches is concerned, it has no merit. The petitioner has been agitating the matter before the concerned authorities and a representation to the Chief Minister of the Punjab was made on 2-10-1915. It may also be noted that laches alone are not a sufficient 1 ground to dismiss a Constitutional petition unless equity leans in favour of a contesting respondent. As far as next contention is concerned it was categorically stated' in para 3 of the petition that the petitioner was a candidate for the post of Secretary Union Council which was admitted as correct both by the Deputy Commissioner: and the Assistant Director, Local Government. The third contention regarding the report of the then Deputy Commissioner dated 23-1-1999 has already been dealt with above. The next contention of the learned. counsel that much because respondent No.8 was a Graduate, therefore, he was rightly preferred has not impressed me either because for determination or merits of the competing. candidates no acceptable F method, was adopted and further that the Assistant Director Local Government, vide certificate dated 23-10-2003, reported that the requisite qualification for the post of Secretary Union Council was Matric.

8. As far as the last contention of the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 is concerned, I am quite conscious that respondents 6 to 8 will be uprooted after about eighty years but that. is inevitable on the basis of the findings recorded by me in this judgment. Reference may be made to Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore (AIR 1965 SC 1293) in which a similar plea was raised but was repelled with the following observations:--

"(9) It is very unfortunate that these persons should be uprooted after they had been appointed but if equality and equal protection before the law have any meaning and if our public institutions are to inspire that confidence which is expected of them we would be failing in our, duty if we did not, even at the cost of considerable inconvenience to Government and the selected candidate do the right thing. If any blame for the inconvenience is to be placed it certainly cannot be placed upon the petitioning candidates, the candidates whom this order displaces or this Court. "

9. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed. The appointment of respondents 6 to 8 as Union Council is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal affect. They will, accordingly, vacate the said posts which shall be filled in accordance with law after inviting applications through a public notice. Nothing said in this judgment shall stand in the way of respondents 6 to 8 to make fresh applications (subject of course to their eligibility) for the post in question as and when applications are invited. No order as to costs.

S.A.K/M-2432/L Petition allowed.