EJAZ MAJEED BHATTI versus PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
R21A (2) Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2000, Regulations Nos. 66, 67, 68 and 69 District Law Officers Appointment Rules, 1977 District Law Officers Service Rules, 2010 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Petition in the Name of Applicants The merit list was prepared after the selection process by the Public Service Commission for the appointment of Assistant District Attorneys, but they were not recommended for appointment because their names conflicted with the required positions. The Public Service Commission was instructed to recommend several names. Selected Candidates Failed to Join the Service The applicants claimed that they were entitled to be selected in the merit list as they were selected in the Judicial Regulation No. 66 in the service of Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations 2000. Not included, permission of the relevant department to request a replacement from the same merit list but it did not order the department or the government to do so or issued further recommendations to the Commission. There was nothing considered in Rules 66 to 68 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations 2000 that the old process of keeping the waiting list could be revived. The Punjab Public Service Commission has been prohibited by Regulation No. 69 of the Regulations. The 2000 law did not require the Public Service Commission to provide alternatives to the same merit list in lieu of selected candidates. Were not included. Special circumstances were there to show that the work of the department would be adversely affected, if the recommendation / appointment of the applicants is not recommended.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
