Habib Sultan Vs Govt. of the Punjab etc.

Form No.HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P No.41362 of 2026 Habib Sultan Vs.

Government of Punjab, etc.

JUDGEMENT

Date of Hearing: 13.10.2026 Petitioner by: Mr. Muhammad Talha Aslam Chaudhary Advocate. Respondents by: Mr. Mohammad Osman Khan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Tahir Mehmood Law Officer PPSC Nadeem Salah ud Din Senior Law Officer Manzoor Ahmed Assistant Director (Admin)

MUNAWAR IQBAL DUGGAL, J. Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed the letter dated 04.06.2026 issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the “PPSC”), whereby his request for recommendation against the post of Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) (BS-

14)in the Punjab Irrigation Department was declined on account of expiry of the validity period of the merit list. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned letter, with a consequential direction to the PPSC to recommend his name from the waiting list and to the competent authority to appoint him against the resultant vacancy, notwithstanding expiry of the prescribed period of twelve months under the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations, 2022”)

2.Brief relevant facts, as borne out from record, are that the PPSC advertised seven posts of Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) (BS-14) in the Punjab Irrigation Department on 20.09.2024. Upon completion of the recruitment process, the result was announced on 14.02.2025. The petitioner could not secure a position amongst the seven successful candidates and was placed at serial No.2 of the waiting list. The PPSC issued its recommendations in favour of the seven selected candidates

on 26.02.2025, whereupon the merit list became operative for the period prescribed under the Regulations, 2022.

3.One of the recommended candidates, namely Babar Ali, who stood at serial No.6 of the merit list, initially accepted the offer of appointment but failed to report for duty. After completion of the due process and requisite departmental formalities, his candidature was formally cancelled on 06.10.2025, whereas his written refusal, executed on e-stamp paper, was received on 04.11.2025. Consequently, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Development/respondent No.3, vide letter dated 12.11.2025, requested the respondent No. 2/Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative Department”) to approach the PPSC for recommendation of a substitute candidate. Acting upon the said request, the Administrative Department, through its communication dated 06.01.2026, formally requested the PPSC to recommend a substitute against the resultant vacancy. In response, the PPSC, vide letter dated 13.02.2026, recommended Wakeel Ahmad, who stood at serial No.1 of the waiting list, as a substitute for Babar Ali. The said recommendation was admittedly made within the prescribed validity period, which expired on 25.02.2026. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer/respondent No.3 issued an offer of appointment to Wakeel Ahmad on 01.04.2026. However, the said candidate also failed to communicate his acceptance within the stipulated time. Upon the failure of Wakeel Ahmad to accept the offer, Chief Engineer/respondent No.3, vide letter dated 06.05.2026, requested the Administrative Department to approach the PPSC for recommendation of another substitute candidate. The Administrative Department, however, vide letter dated 07.05.2026, declined to forward a further requisition on the ground that the validity of the merit list had already expired on 25.02.2026.

4.The petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.05.2026 seeking recommendation against the vacancy, which was declined through the impugned communication dated 04.06.2026. The petitioner

has stated that another selected candidate, namely Ikram Ullah Khan, had tendered his resignation on 26.12.2025, thereby creating an additional vacancy during the subsistence of the merit list. According to the petitioner, the respondents were under a legal obligation to seek substitute recommendations against the vacancies which had arisen during the prescribed period, and their failure to do so could not lawfully deprive him of consideration for appointment.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the object of maintaining a waiting list is to ensure that vacancies arising on account of non-joining or resignation of selected candidates are filled without resorting to a fresh recruitment process. He argues that once a vacancy has arisen during the validity period, the subsequent expiry of the list cannot defeat the claim of an otherwise eligible candidate, particularly where the delay in processing the matter is attributable to the department. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed upon Asad Abbas v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies Department, Lahore and others (2024 PLC (C.S.) 142), upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies Department, Lahore and others v. Asad Abbas (2022 SCMR 739), Muhammad Imran v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (2026 PLC (C.S.) 982), Muhammad Ali Shah v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others (2026 PLC (C.S.) 327), and Dr. Sumera Tabassum v. F.P.S.C. and others (2016 SCMR

6.Conversely, learned Law Officer, assisted by the representatives of the PPSC and the Irrigation Department, opposes the petition. He submits that the respondents acted diligently and in accordance with the Regulations, 2022. It is pointed out that, upon the failure of Babar Ali to join, the departmental authorities completed the necessary formalities, sought a substitute recommendation and obtained the recommendation of Wakeel Ahmad on 13.02.2026, well within the prescribed period. However, the subsequent failure of Wakeel Ahmad

to accept the offer occurred after expiry of the merit list, and the request for a further substitute was initiated only on 06.05.2026. It is contended that Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022 does not authorize revival of an expired merit list merely because a candidate recommended during its currency subsequently fails to join. Learned Law Officer further submits that the petitioner approached the respondents for the first time on 16.05.2026, after expiry of the prescribed period, and has neither established any mala fide or discriminatory conduct nor demonstrated that a valid departmental request for the further substitution claimed by him was received by the PPSC during the currency of the merit list. Regarding the resignation tendered by Ikram Ullah Khan, it has been submitted that the mere tendering of resignation does not, by itself, establish the occurrence of a legally available vacancy; that such a vacancy would arise only upon the resignation becoming effective in accordance with the applicable service rules coupled with subsequent completion of the requisite departmental formalities within validity of merit list; that there is no allegation or material of any inordinate delay, deliberate inaction or mala fide on the part of the department in completing such formalities or initiating the process for obtaining a substitute recommendation from the PPSC within the prescribed validity period of the merit list. Reliance is placed upon The Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and others v. Aamir Hayat and others (2019 SCMR 124). Dismissal of the petition is accordingly sought.

7.Arguments heard. Record perused.

8.The principal question requiring determination is whether a candidate placed on the waiting list acquires an enforceable right to recommendation or appointment merely because a vacancy arose during the validity period of the merit list, notwithstanding that the request for the particular substitute recommendation was not received by the PPSC within the period prescribed under the applicable Regulations. Ancillary thereto is the question whether, on the facts of the present case, any illegality, mala fide, discrimination or failure to

discharge a statutory obligation has been established so as to warrant interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

9.In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to examine the governing regulatory framework. The Regulations, 2022 had been framed under Section 10(2) of Punjab Public Service Commission Ordiance, 1978 and regulate, inter alia, the preparation and operation of merit lists, the recommendation of substitute candidates and the period during which such recommendations may lawfully be made. Regulations 60 and 63 of Regulations, 2022 are particularly relevant to the controversy. Regulation 60 of Regulations, 2022 provides for recommendation of a substitute candidate from the merit list during its validity period, upon a request from the department concerned, where a recommended candidate fails to join, tenders resignation after joining, is declared unfit on medical or other grounds, or the requisitioned post becomes vacant for any other reason. The provision thus recognizes circumstances in which a substitute recommendation may be sought. However, the power is expressly regulated by the validity period of the merit list and the requirement of a departmental request. Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022 is of immense importance for the purposes of the instant case, therefore, it is imperative to reproduce the said Regulation 63 which provides as follows:

“For recommending substitutes, the merit list for all the posts shall remain valid for twelve months from the date of issuance of recommendation letter irrespective of the receipt of fresh requisitions for the said post. However, where request for substitute is received within the validity period, the Chairman may extend the validity period for the disposal of such request.”

(Bold and undeline is to lay emphasis)

10.A plain reading of Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022 reveals that the framers of the Regulations have consciously employed the expression “shall” while prescribing that the merit list shall remain valid for twelve months from the date of issuance of the recommendation letter. The use of the word “shall”, when examined in

the context of the object, scheme and language of the provision, manifests a mandatory prescription governing the validity period of the merit list, rather than a merely directory or discretionary stipulation. This interpretation is further fortified by the subsequent use of the expression “may”, whereby a limited discretion has been conferred upon the Chairman to extend the validity period for disposal of a request for substitution, provided such request was received within the original validity period. The deliberate employment of the expressions “shall” and “may” in the same provision is significant and indicates that the framers intended to draw a distinction between the mandatory duration of the merit list and the conditional discretionary power of its extension. Thus, while the validity period of twelve months is prescribed in mandatory terms, the Chairman's discretion to extend the same is neither absolute nor unrestricted, but is expressly conditioned upon receipt of a request for substitution within the stipulated period. Any interpretation permitting extension of the merit list in the absence of fulfilment of the said condition would render the mandatory prescription nugatory and defeat the express intent underlying Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022.

11.The discretion conferred upon the Chairman is, therefore, neither unrestricted nor exercisable independently of the prescribed condition. Had the framers of the Regulations intended to confer an open-ended power to extend or revive a merit list whenever a departmental request was received, irrespective of the date of its receipt, they could have employed language to that effect. Instead, the discretion has been expressly linked to receipt of the request within the original validity period. The Court cannot, under the guise of interpretation, remove that condition or substitute an unrestricted discretion for the limited authority conferred by the Regulations.

12.The distinction between the occurrence of a vacancy and the receipt of a request for a substitute recommendation is fundamental. Regulation 60 of Regulations, 2022 identifies the circumstances in which a substitute may be sought, whereas Regulation 63 regulates the

duration for which the merit list remains operative and the circumstances in which its validity may be extended. Both provisions must be read harmoniously. The mere occurrence of a vacancy during the currency of the merit list does not, by itself, extend the list or dispense with the requirement that the competent department initiate the prescribed process within the stipulated period.

13.The Regulations, 2022, having been framed in exercise of statutory authority, possess binding legal force within the limits of their enabling enactment. They cannot be ignored or rendered ineffective merely because their application may operate against the claim of an individual candidate. Their validity has not been challenged in the instant petition. Consequently, the rights and obligations of the parties must be determined within the regulatory framework as it stands. A direction compelling the PPSC to recommend a candidate contrary to the express conditions of Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022 would amount, in substance, to disregarding a binding regulatory restriction without any lawful basis for doing so.

14.Applying the foregoing provisions to the admitted chronology, the original recommendations were issued on 26.02.2025 and the validity period expired on 25.02.2026. During this period, the respondents processed the case arising from the non-joining of Babar Ali. His candidature was cancelled on 06.10.2025; his written refusal was received on 04.11.2025; the Chief Engineer approached the Administrative Department on 12.11.2025; and the latter formally requested the PPSC for a substitute on 06.01.2026. The PPSC responded by recommending Wakeel Ahmad on 13.02.2026. Thus, the statutory process concerning that vacancy was initiated and completed, so far as the substitute recommendation was concerned, during the validity period of the merit list. The subsequent failure of Wakeel Ahmad to accept the appointment gives rise to a materially different situation. His offer of appointment was issued on 01.04.2026, after expiry of the merit list, and the request for a further substitute was initiated on 06.05.2026. The Administrative Department declined to

forward that request on 07.05.2026 because the prescribed period had already expired. No material has been produced establishing that a request for the further substitution now claimed by the petitioner was received by the PPSC on or before 25.02.2026 or that the Chairman had extended the validity period for disposal of such a request in accordance with Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022.

15.The departmental chronology also does not support the allegation of mala fide or deliberate inaction. The respondents took successive steps as the relevant circumstances arose. The non-joining of Babar Ali was processed through cancellation of his candidature, receipt of his formal refusal and transmission of a substitute request to the PPSC. The PPSC made its recommendation before expiry of the list. When Wakeel Ahmad subsequently failed to accept the appointment, respondent No.3 again approached the Administrative Department. The latter declined to initiate a further requisition on the basis of the regulatory limitation. Whether every administrative step could have been taken more expeditiously is not, by itself, the test for judicial interference. The relevant question is whether the respondents acted in breach of a legal duty or with mala fide or discriminatory intent. On the material available, no such infirmity has been established.

16.Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that some administrative delay could be attributed to a government functionary, such delay would not empower the Court to dispense with an express condition prescribed by validly framed Regulations. The principle that a candidate should not suffer because of arbitrary departmental inaction cannot be converted into an unqualified rule that every expired merit list must be revived whenever a vacancy has arisen during its currency. Such an approach would render the statutory limitation dependent upon considerations of administrative convenience rather than the language of the governing law.

17.The petitioner's reliance upon the resignation tendered by Ikram Ullah Khan on 26.12.2025 also requires separate consideration. The

mere tendering of resignation does not necessarily establish that the post stood vacated on that date. Its legal effect depends upon the applicable service rules, acceptance by the competent authority, followed by completion of the requisite departmental formalities and initiation of the process for obtaining a fresh substitute recommendation from the PPSC within the prescribed validity period of the merit list. The petitioner has failed to establish from the record that the resignation had become effective and that the consequential departmental formalities had progressed to a stage where a legal obligation arose on the part of the department to initiate the process for obtaining a substitute recommendation during the validity period of the merit list. Nor has it been demonstrated that any request for a substitute against the said vacancy was received by the PPSC within the period prescribed under Regulation 63 of the Regulations, 2022. Even if it is assumed in favour of the petitioner that a vacancy arose during the currency of the merit list, the decisive requirement of a timely departmental request would still remain. The petitioner cannot derive an enforceable right to appointment merely from the existence of a vacancy without demonstrating compliance with the conditions governing substitute recommendations. His own representation dated 16.05.2026 was admittedly submitted after expiry of the merit list.

18.The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner have been examined. In Asad Abbas (2024 PLC (C.S.) 142), the controversy concerned denial of consideration to a waiting-list candidate notwithstanding the availability of vacancies and the conduct of the department in processing substitute recommendations. The matter ultimately came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies Department, Lahore and others v. Asad Abbas (2022 SCMR 739). The Hon'ble Supreme Court declined leave to appeal, having regard to the particular facts demonstrating departmental inaction, the availability of vacancies and unequal treatment of similarly situated waiting-list candidates. A significant feature of Asad Abbas was that the aggrieved candidate had invoked the available remedies and initiated proceedings

while the merit list was operative. Furthermore, another candidate from the waiting list had already been accommodated, whereas the respondent, despite his position in the order of merit and the existence of vacancies, had been denied similar consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically examined the matter in the context of Article 25 of the Constitution and found that the respondent could not be made to suffer because of the department's failure to take the requisite steps.

19.The factual foundation of the present case is materially different. Here, the department did approach the PPSC during the validity period, and the PPSC duly recommended Wakeel Ahmad as the first substitute. The petitioner approached the respondents only after expiry of the merit list. No plea supported by material establishing discriminatory treatment of similarly situated candidates has been advanced, nor has any deliberate refusal to process a timely request concerning the petitioner's claimed substitution been demonstrated. The equitable considerations which weighed with the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asad Abbas are, therefore, absent in the present case. The said judgment cannot be read as dispensing in every case with the express requirement of a timely request under the applicable Regulations.

20.The reliance upon Muhammad Imran (supra) is equally distinguishable. In that case, the Court examined the consequences of departmental delay and inaction in processing a claim arising during the subsistence of the waiting list. The decision proceeded upon the factual premise that the vacancy had arisen within the validity period and that the aggrieved candidate had approached the competent authorities in time. The Court also considered the principles discussed in Muhammad Ali Shah (supra), concerning the obligation of an administrative department to act fairly and expeditiously upon a timely request by an eligible waiting-list candidate. The emphasis upon timely assertion of the claim is of considerable importance. The principle protects a candidate who has invoked the prescribed process during the currency of the list from being prejudiced by unjustified administrative

inaction. It does not necessarily confer an enforceable right upon a candidate who first approaches the authorities after expiry of the prescribed period, particularly where the department had already processed the earlier vacancy in accordance with law.

21.In the present case, the petitioner admittedly submitted his representation on 16.05.2026, whereas the merit list expired on 25.02.2026. More importantly, the respondents had already discharged their obligation concerning the original non-joining vacancy by securing the recommendation of Wakeel Ahmad on 13.02.2026. The subsequent failure of that candidate to accept the offer occurred in a different factual and temporal setting. Consequently, neither Muhammad Imran nor Muhammad Ali Shah advances the petitioner's claim to a further recommendation contrary to the requirements of Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022.

22.The judgment in Dr. Sumera Tabassum (supra) is also distinguishable. The controversy therein arose under the recruitment framework of the Federal Public Service Commission and the Office Memorandum issued by the Establishment Division on 05.05.2010. The said memorandum prescribed the validity period of the reserve list and expressly contemplated additional periods or extensions in specified circumstances, including delay in issuance of appointment offers and non-joining of alternate nominees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the petitioner's entitlement with reference to those provisions and the fact that the delay was not attributable to her. The decision in Dr. Sumera Tabassum was thus rendered in the context of a materially different regulatory framework, which itself accommodated extensions in the circumstances identified therein. In contrast, Regulation 63 of the Regulations, 2022, expressly conditions the Chairman's power of extension upon receipt of a substitute request within the original validity period. The petitioner has not established fulfilment of that condition in relation to the further recommendation sought by him. The principle enunciated in Dr. Sumera Tabassum

cannot be applied by disregarding the different language and limitations of the Regulations governing the present recruitment.

23.On the other hand, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aamir Hayat and others (supra) are relevant to the controversy. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the limits of judicial interference with decisions of the recruiting authorities and held, in substance, that the High Court cannot substitute its own decision for a lawful exercise of administrative discretion in the absence of an established legal infirmity. The constitutional jurisdiction is intended to ensure that public functionaries perform the duties imposed upon them by law and refrain from exercising powers which the law does not confer. Although the facts of Aamir Hayat are not identical to those of the instant petition, its governing principle is attracted. The respondents have demonstrated that the first substitute recommendation was sought and obtained within the prescribed period. The subsequent refusal to initiate another request was founded upon the expiry of the merit list and the limitation imposed by Regulation 63. No mala fide, discrimination or departure from the applicable regulatory framework has been established. In such circumstances, a direction requiring the PPSC to recommend the petitioner from an expired merit list would amount to substituting judicial discretion for the decision of the competent authorities without identifying any breach of law.

24.It is also necessary to consider the scope of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of this Court is supervisory and corrective; it is not intended to confer upon the Court the functions of a recruiting agency or to authorize the creation of an entitlement contrary to the applicable law. The Court may intervene where an administrative authority acts without jurisdiction, fails to discharge a statutory duty, exercises discretion arbitrarily or discriminates unlawfully. However, where the competent authority acts within the prescribed framework and no enforceable legal right is infringed, constitutional interference is unwarranted. Article 199(1A) of the Constitution further provides that the High Court shall not make an

order, give a direction or make a declaration on its own or in the nature of suo motu exercise of jurisdiction beyond the contents of an application filed under clause (1). The provision reinforces the requirement that constitutional relief must remain anchored to the grievance and relief brought before the Court. In the present case, the petitioner has sought recommendation and appointment notwithstanding expiry of the merit list; he has not challenged the vires of Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022. The Court is, therefore, required to determine whether the relief claimed can lawfully be granted under the existing regulatory framework, rather than granting relief in derogation of the express requirements of the applicable Regulations.

25.The prescribed validity period is not merely an administrative formality. It serves the legitimate object of maintaining certainty, finality and orderly progression in public recruitment. If the existence of a vacancy during the currency of a merit list were held sufficient, by itself, to preserve the list indefinitely, the distinction between a current recruitment process and a fresh recruitment exercise would become uncertain. Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022 avoids that consequence by prescribing a definite period while permitting a limited extension where a substitute request has already been received during the currency of the list. Both components of the provision must be given effect.

26.The objection concerning availability of an alternative remedy under Regulation 26(b) of the Regulations, 2022, has also been raised. However, since the controversy has been examined on merits and the petitioner has failed to establish an enforceable legal right or any jurisdictional defect in the impugned communication, it is unnecessary to rest the decision solely upon the said objection.

27.In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents acted within the framework of Regulations 60 and 63 of the Regulations, 2022. The PPSC duly provided the first substitute recommendation during the validity period,

whereas the subsequent request for another substitute arose after expiry of the merit list. The petitioner himself approached the authorities after the prescribed period had elapsed. No material has been brought on record establishing mala fide, discriminatory treatment, deliberate inaction or any violation of a statutory duty on the part of the respondents. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on their respective facts and governing legal frameworks.

28.Consequently, the impugned letter dated 04.06.2026 cannot be declared unlawful merely because a vacancy allegedly arose during the validity period of the merit list. In the absence of compliance with the conditions prescribed for a further substitute recommendation, no enforceable right to appointment has accrued in favour of the petitioner. Granting the relief sought would require the Court to disregard the express limitation contained in Regulation 63 of Regulations, 2022, which remains valid and operative.

29.For the foregoing reasons, the instant constitutional petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MUNAWAR IQBAL DUGGAL)

JUDGE.

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

JUDGE.

Javed*