Present:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi &

Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam.

C.P.No.D-2374 of 2013

For Katcha Peshi

Date of hearing: 14.04.2016

Date of reasons:29.04.2016

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Shahani, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Shafique Ahmed Leghari, State Counsel.

O R D E R

AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J. Through instant petition, the petitioner has sought following relief (s):

a. To declare the acts of respondents of making recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk without declaring the result of written test and issuing merit list, as illegal ab initio, null and void and without any lawful authority.

b. To direct the respondents to produce entire record of recruitment before this Court, and after examining the record this Court may be pleased to cancel the appointment order issued without adopting the procedure as laid down under the law.

c. To direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Junior Clerk on merit in accordance with law.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed for the post of junior clerk, who applied for such post in the respondent Department, pursuant to advertisement published in daily “Awami Awaz” on 11.07.2013, however, per learned counsel, neither the petitioner was called for interview nor his application has been considered for his appointment as junior clerk by the respondents, who have given appointments to their blue-eyed ones by ignoring the petitioner, who according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was also eligible to be given appointment on the basis of son quota as father of the petitioner namely Abdul Rauf had retired in the year 2011 after attaining the age of superannuation in his capacity as office superintendent (BPS-16). Learned counsel has further alleged that the appointment made in the office of Director General (PR) Information Department Karachi in the year 2011 were made without following the codel formalities and by violating the merits.

3. Pursuant to Court notice, objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein the allegations, as contained in the instant petition, have been vehemently denied. It has been stated by the respondents that the petitioner neither appeared for the interview before the competent authority nor his name appeared in the merit list issued by the respondent pursuant to advertisement published in the newspaper, as referred to hereinabove. It has been further stated that the petitioner even otherwise did not qualify for such post as the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria i.e. for the post of junior clerk, the requirement of appointment on such post was that a candidate should be graduate and computer literate with maximum computer typing speed, whereas, petitioner does not possess such qualifications.

4. Learned State Counsel submits that instant petition is not maintainable as it involves seriously disputed facts, whereas, the petitioner was not even eligible to be given such appointment, as neither he appeared before the competent authority nor he was qualified for such post. It has been further stated that there is no provision in law or policy relating to appointment on the basis of son quota in the Information Department of Government of Sindh nor as per Sindh Civil Servants (appointment, promotion and transfer) Rules, 1974 such quota has been recognized, whereas in terms of Rule 11-A of the aforesaid rules, according to learned State Counsel, only such candidates are eligible to apply for appointment in various Departments of Government of Sindh, where “a civil servant dies while in service or is declared to be invalidated or incapacitated for further service and in such eventuality one of his/her child or as the case may be widow (when all the children of the deceased are minor), can be considered as eligible to be given appointment provided such candidate applies within a period of two years of the death or declaration of invalidated or incapacitated of civil servant on any of the basic pay scale in the Department where the deceased was serving”. It has been prayed that instant petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

5. When confronted with hereinabove legal and factual position and the facts as disputed through comments filed on behalf of respondent No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfactorily respond to such legal objection, however, submits that the petitioner may be considered for such appointment on sympathetic grounds by respondents.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel, perused the record and the comments filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein, the claim of the petitioner has been seriously disputed by the respondents and it appears that the petitioner never approached the relevant authority for the purpose of his appointment during relevant period of time. It further appears that there is no notification, rule or policy placed on record which may support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has sought appointment on the basis of son quota, whereas, as per rule 11-A, the request of a candidate to be appointed on the basis of deceased quota can be considered subject to fulfillment of codel formalities and requirements of the aforesaid rule.

7. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any substance in the petition, which was dismissed vid our short order dated 14.04.2016, these are the reasons for our short order.

JUDGE

JUDGE

N.M.