IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 1948-L OF 2021 
(Against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
20.09.2021 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
Writ Petition No. 55270/2020) 
 
Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies 
Department, Lahore etc 
…Petitioners 
Versus 
Asad Abbas 
…Respondent 
 
For the Petitioners:  
Rana Shamshad Khan, Addl. A.G. 
 
For the Respondent: 
N.R. 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
27.12.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 
20.09.2021 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, 
whereby the Constitutional Petition filed by the respondent was 
allowed and the departmental order dated 06.02.2020 rejecting 
respondent’s application for his appointment as Sub-Inspector (BPS-
11) being next in merit was set at naught.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to 
an 
advertisement 
dated 
02.07.2017, 
Punjab 
Public 
Service 
Commission invited applications from the eligible candidates for 
recruitment of four posts of Sub-Inspector (BPS-11) in the Punjab 
Cooperatives Department, Khushab. After written test and interview, 
a final seniority list was prepared wherein the respondent stood at 
Serial No. 8. Vide letter dated 26.09.2017, the Punjab Public Service 
Commission recommended the appointment of first four candidates 
of the seniority list and the names of the persons who secured 5th to 
8th positions were kept at waiting list. Out of the four recommended 
Civil Petition No. 1948-L/2021 
-: 2 :-
for appointment, the candidate at Serial No. 1 namely Muhammad 
Irfan Zafar was selected for a higher post i.e. Inspector (BPS-14) 
whereas the candidate at Serial No. 2 namely Javed Iqbal refused to 
accept the job. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.03.2018, the 
department requested the Commission to provide substitute of the 
said candidates and in response only the name of Muhammad 
Naeem Akhtar at Serial No. 5 was provided as substitute and the 
names of already recommended three candidates were again 
included. It appears from the record that candidate at Serial No. 3 
namely Muhammad Waseem Akram subsequently resigned from 
duty on 30.04.2018 and in these circumstances out of the four 
vacancies, only one vacancy could be filled and the three were lying 
vacant. Pursuant to another request from the department dated 
05.09.2018 for providing substitutes, the names of Muhammad 
Javed at Serial No. 6 and Babar Rehman Khan at Serial No. 7 were 
recommended by the Commission but they refused to join the duty 
and in this regard also sworn affidavits. The perusal of record 
reveals that the respondent and one another namely Muhammad 
Naeem Akhtar from the waiting list wanted to join the duty because 
five persons above them in the seniority list refused to accept the 
job. The said Mohammad Naeem Akhtar filed a Constitutional 
Petition before the High Court and ultimately succeeded in getting 
the relief sought for. Being aggrieved, the respondent also filed Writ 
Petition No. 214496/2018, which was disposed of on 27.02.2019 
with the direction to the respondent to firstly approach the 
Department for redressal of his grievance. Pursuant to the said 
order, the respondent approached the department but his 
application was turned down by the department vide order dated 
16.05.2019. Thereafter, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 
33726/2019 which was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2019 and 
the department was directed to re-decide his application through a 
well reasoned speaking order but the department again rejected his 
application vide order dated 06.02.2020, which led to filing of yet 
another Writ Petition No. 55270/2020 before the learned Lahore 
High Court, which has been allowed vide impugned order and the 
order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the department was set aside. 
Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal.  
Civil Petition No. 1948-L/2021 
-: 3 :-
3. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned 
Additional Advocate General is that under Regulation No. 59 of the 
Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016, only the 
concerned department can ask for substitute in case a candidate 
fails to join the post, tenders his resignation or is declared unfit. 
Contends that first recommendation in this matter was sent on 
26.09.2017 and in light of Regulation No. 62 of the Punjab Public 
Service Commission Regulations, 2016, after one year of the first 
recommendation the merit list expired on 25.09.2018 and since 
before the expiry of the merit list, the department had never asked 
for the substitution of fourth selected candidate, therefore, the 
request of the respondent was rightly rejected by the department. 
Lastly contends that requesting a substitute from waiting list is the 
sole prerogative of the department and the appointment as 
substitute from waiting list cannot be claimed as a matter of right.  
4. 
 
We have heard learned Law Officer at some length and 
have carefully perused the available record.  
 
 
The perusal of record clearly reveals that for the four 
posts of Sub-Inspector (BPS-11) at Khushab Region, the Punjab 
Public Service Commission after conducting test and interview had 
prepared a seniority list of eligible candidates wherein the name of 
the respondent was at Serial No. 8. Vide letter dated 26.09.2017, 
the Commission recommended the names of first four persons to be 
appointed as Sub-Inspector (BPS-11) but as the candidate at Serial 
No. 1 was selected for the higher post of Inspector (BPS-14), 
therefore, he did not join the duty as Sub-Inspector (BPS-11); the 
person at Serial No. 2 refused to join the duty whereas the person at 
Serial No. 3 subsequently resigned on 30.04.2018 and only one 
vacancy could be filled in. To fill the remaining three vacancies, 
ultimately the names of persons from waiting list i.e. at Serial Nos. 
5, 6 and 7 were recommended by the Commission but the record 
shows that the candidate at Serial No. 6 of the waiting list joined 
police department whereas the other at Serial No. 7 of the waiting 
list joined Education Department and refused to join the petitioner 
Department as Sub-Inspectors (BPS-11). In these circumstances, the 
name of the respondent eventually came at Serial No. 3. It is an 
Civil Petition No. 1948-L/2021 
-: 4 :-
admitted position that the person at Serial No. 5, who was also a 
waiting candidate, was appointed as Sub-Inspector. When there 
were vacancies available and after the refusal of the other 
candidates, who were above the respondent in the seniority list, the 
respondent came at Serial No. 3 and one waiting candidate was 
also appointed, denying the relief to the respondent is violation of 
Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, 
which ensures equality before the law and equal protection of law 
and states that there shall be no element of discrimination. Merely 
for the fault of the department that it did not apply to the 
Commission to get the name of the respondent as substitute within 
the stipulated period of time, the respondent cannot be left to suffer 
for an irreparable loss. The learned High Court has rightly relied 
upon the judgment of this Court passed in Government of NWFP Vs. 
Qasim Shah (2009 SCMR 382) wherein this Court has candidly held 
that when some of the selected candidates do not join the service, 
such posts remain vacant and it is imperative for the department to 
consider the remaining candidates for appointment against the said 
posts because these posts cannot be kept vacant till the next process 
of recruitment, if some selected candidates are still available on the 
waiting list. The learned Law Officer put much stress on the point 
that at the time of expiry of the merit list i.e. 25.09.2018, no vacancy 
was available. However, as discussed above, this was not the case 
and the vacancies were available. This fact has been noted by the 
learned High Court in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and 
according to the dictates of Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 
Order, 1984, judicial proceedings have got sanctity and a 
presumption of correctness is attached to the proceedings before a 
judicial forum. This Court in the case of Muhammad Ramzan Vs. 
LDA (2002 SCMR 1336) has categorically held that strong 
presumption of correctness and sanctity of high order is always 
attached to judicial proceedings. Reliance is also placed on Fayyaz 
Hussain Vs. Akbar Hussain (2004 SCMR 964) & Waqar Jalal Ansari 
Vs. National Bank of Pakistan (2008 CLD 1202). Mere the bald 
statement of the learned Law Officer without any documentary proof 
cannot overturn the judicial finding. Even otherwise, the expiry of 
time, if any, was not attributable to the respondent and could not be 
Civil Petition No. 1948-L/2021 
-: 5 :-
counted against him to deprive him from the post in question for 
which he was fully qualified and till date the post was vacant and 
had not been re-advertized. Learned Law Officer has raised this 
issue before this Court for the very first time and even did not 
agitate the same in the memo of petition. We have noticed that the 
learned High Court vide impugned order dated 20.09.2021 had 
directed the petitioner department to redress respondent’s grievance 
by taking all necessary steps in liaison with Punjab Public Service 
Commission within a period of thirty days but despite lapse of more 
than three months, no heed has been paid by the department, which 
clearly reflects its lethargic attitude. 
5. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition 
having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is 
refused.  
  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the 
27th of December, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
