ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-2077 of 2012

____________________________________________________________

                            Order with signature of Judge   

 

Present :     Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar

                                Mr. Justice Abdul Ghani Soomro

 

Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqui.…………..……………….….Petitioner

Versus

Federation of Pakistan and 05  others.…………....Respondents

 

Date of Hearing:-           30.08.2016

 

Syed Shoa-un-Nabi, advocate for the petitioner

Mr.Muhammad Arshad Khan Tanoli, advocate for PQA

Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan, Manager HR, PQA is also present

Sh.Liaquat Hussain, Standing Counsel

………

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J: The petitioner has approached this court for seeking directions against the respondents to appoint him as Instructor (BS-18) as the petitioner has secured 2nd position in Test/Interview and he is a  deserving departmental candidate for the post of Instructor on merits. Further directions have also been sought to confirm/re-designate and upgrade the petitioner on regular basis with effect from 01.09.2007 as Deputy Manager (Admin) BS-17. It is an admitted position that the petitioner applied for  said post against an advertisement published on 05..11.2008. Since the petitioner considered himself to be qualified on merits but he was not considered by the department for the said post, therefore, he earlier filed C.P.No.D-2075/2010 in this court. It is also an admitted position that when said petition was filed, the respondent No.2 had no statutory rules of service. On 07.09.2010, learned DB while relying on judgment of apex court PIAC vs. Tanveer-ur-Rehman (SBLR 2010 SC 303) and judgment passed by this court in the case of Naseeruddin Ghori vs. Federation of Pakistan (2010 PLC 323), dismissed the said petition with the observation that PQA does not have statutory rules. However, the petitioner was left at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by this order, a review application was filed by same petitioner which was taken-up for hearing on 30.05.2011 by same learned DB of this court. The learned counsel for the same petitioner in support of his review application argued that PQA is preparing statutory rules of service and when such rules are framed, case of the petitioner will revive and he further prayed that hearing of review application be postponed till statutory rules are framed. On this argument, learned DB held as under:-

“We are sorry that we do not find ourselves in agreement with the counsel as there is no proposition of law where the case which stood finally decided will stand revived on the basis of subsequently framing of rules and review application. It may be noted that if statutory rules of service are framed by the Port Qasim Authority, it will have prospective application and will not revive the case in hand which has been finally decided through a review application.  No review on such ground is permissible. The review application is therefore dismissed”.

 

          Despite clear observations made by learned DB, the petitioner has filed present petition in the year 2012 with the same prayers.

          Learned  counsel for the petitioner argued that since statutory rules of service have been framed by Port Qasim Authority, therefore, the petitioner may maintain his petition in terms of rules framed vide S.R.O.43(KE)/2011 dated 05.03.2011. 

It is well settled proposition of law that rules always have prospective application and same cannot be applied with retrospective effect to deal for recruitment process started in 2008. When earlier petition of the petitioner was dismissed, he was given an opportunity to avail appropriate remedy but instead of availing appropriate remedy available at that relevant time, he filed review application which was also dismissed. Record shows that thereafter neither he approached to apex court nor any other proceedings were initiated to safeguard the interest of the petitioner. At this stage when the lis has already been decided earlier by another DB of this court with clear observation, then this DB of this court has no reason to disagree the earlier findings and we are also of the view that rules have prospective application.

          This petition is dismissed alongwith listed applications. However, the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law as learned counsel for the petitioner claims that some injustice has been done with the petitioner.

 

                                                             J U D G E

                                                J U D G E