2022 P L C (C.S.) 1494
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
ABDUL RAUF and others
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Services and General
Administration Department and others
Constitution Petitions Nos.48, 363, 401, 656, 678 and 1173 of 2019, decided on 3rd January, 2020.
Civil service ---
----Advertisement for appointments ---Locus poenitentiae, principle of ---Applicability ---
Candidates having qualified written test and intervie w were recommended for appointment
by the Recruitment Committee ---Department did not announce result on the basis of said
recommendations but re -advertised the posts on the ground of delay in completion of
recruitment process ---Validity ---Department had co nstituted Selection Committee for
conducting written test and interview for the posts in question---Petitioners had qualified written test and interview and merit list had been prepared ---Candidates had been
recommended by the Selection Committee for appoi ntment ---Petitioners who had been
recommended by the Recruitment Committee after due process were not at fault for protracted and lengthy process of recruitment ---Re-advertisement of the posts in question
was not justified and plausible, in circumstances ---No plausible and legal justification
existed for cancellation of recommendations of Recruitment Committee---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the constitution of Selection Committee ---Once process
of selection had been completed in an ordinary manner then it could not be upset in an arbitrary manner ---Process of recruitment in the present case had been completed and all
decisive steps had been taken for recruitment ---Any lapse or delay in executing a clerical or
inconsequential formalit y would not render such process incomplete ---Right had accrued in
favour of petitioners for job against the posts for which they had been selected---No power of locus poenitentiae was left with the department to retract from their steps ---Department was
directed by the High Court to issue appointment orders in favour of petitioners after due
verification of their credentials ---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
2004 PLC (C.S.) 99 rel.
Ghulam Mustafa Buadar for Petitioner (in Constituti on Petitions Nos.401, 678 and
1173 of 2019).
Zahoor Ahmed Baloch for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.656 of 2019).
Abdul Khair Achakzai for Petitioners (in Constitution Petitions Nos.48 and 363 of
2019).
Zahoor Baloch, Additional Advocate Genera l (AAG), Abdullah Shahwani DG along
with Abdul Mateen Kakar, Director (Judicial) Mines and Minerals Department Government
of Balochistan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th December, 2019.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J .----This common judgment shall dispose of the titled
Constitutional Petitions being Nos. 48, 363, 401, 656, 678 and 1173 of 2019, as in all these matters, not only the facts are akin but the question of law is also same.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of the cases appear to be that in response to advertisement
published in daily newspapers 'Daily Mashriq dated 17.05.2017' and 'Daily Express Century dated 18.02.2018' for different posts on divisional quota basis issued by respondent No. 3 i.e. Director General Mines and Minerals Dep artment Government of Balochistan the petitioners
applied for the said posts being qualified and eligible and appeared in written tests and interviews. The test and interviews were conducted by the Selection/Recruitment Committee, which was constituted by the Government of Balochistan under the Chairmanship of
respondent No.3. The applications were duly processed and after completion of test and interviews the Committee through minutes of meetings held on 11.07.2018 and 12.07.2018 made recommendations for a ppointment of the petitioners against the respective posts but the
department did not announce the result on basis of recommendations made by the
Committee. Meanwhile the Provincial Government re -advertised the said posts vide
publication made in Daily Jan g newspaper on 16th February 2019. Hence, these petitions.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the
record of the cases.
4. The respondents filed parawise comments and contested the petitions stating therein
that replying respondent No.3 has not conveyed the respondent No.2 for approval of
appointments of the petitioners due to certain legal constraints as the recruitment process got out of hand and expended on more than fourteen months which should have been compl eted
within four months. Admittedly the department conducted tests and interviews and the office of the Director General Mines and Minerals Department Government of Balochistan with the approval of the competent authority constituted the Selection/Recruitm ent Committee for
conducting test and interviews for recruitment against the posts of BPS -2 to BPS -15,
comprising of the following members.
1. Director General/Director (Admn), Mines and Minerals Balochistan. (Chairman)
2. Deputy Secretary (Admn) Mines and Minerals Balochistan. (Member)
3. Under Secretary (Admn), Mines and Minerals Balochistan. (Member).
4. Administrative Officer, Mines and Minerals Balochistan. (Secretary).
5. The committee after conducting test and interviews in a fair and transparent man ner
prepared the merit list and the petitioners were recommended for appointment on different
posts in the department. According to parawise comments of the respondents the test and interviews were conducted in accordance with law. The only ground put fort h by the
respondents for re -advertisement of the said posts is protraction and delay in completion of
the recruitment process. In our humble view such protracted and lengthy process that too without fault on the part of the candidates who had otherwise bee n recommended by the
committee for appointment after due process, by any standards, cannot render re -
advertisement of the posts justified and plausible. There is no plausible and legal justification for cancellation of the recommendation of the committee a nd re -advertisement of the said
posts. There is no illegality or irregularity in the constitution of the Selection/Recruitment Committee as well.
6. It is established law that once the process of selection is completed in an ordinary
manner, it cannot be u pset in an arbitrary manner. The process of the recruitment was
completed and all decisive steps had been taken for petitioner's appointment, thus any lapse or delay in executing a simple clerical or inconsequential formality would not render such process incomplete, as a right had accrued to the petitioner for job against vacancy for which
they have been selected. Indeed a right was created in favour of the petitioners by displaying a merit list and petitioners were recommended by recruitment committee and no powers of
locus poenitentiae were left with the respondents to retract their steps. Reliance in this regard can safely be placed on the case titled 2004 PLC (C.S) 99, wherein it was held as under:
"Appointments against advertised posts ---Petitioners q ualified written test and
interview and were recommended by Selection Committee---Authority made appointments on the basis of list approved by Government as per direction of higher Authorities, thus, deprived petitioners having legitimate expectation for a ppointment --
-High Court accepted Constitutional Petition with direction to respondents to issue
appointment letter to petitioners ---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed against
judgment of the High Court."
7. For the above reasons, these petitions are accepted and the Secretary concerned is
directed to issue the appointment orders of the petitioners after due verification of their credentials.
ZC/45/Bal. Petition allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.