ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cons. Petition No.644 of 2013

______________________________________________________________________ DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

For katcha Peshi

18-12-2015.

Mr. Saeed Jamal Advocate for petitioners

Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar Additional Advocate General.

-------------

Petitioners Shahid Ali, Atta Muhammad and Sajid Ali have filed the instant Cons. Petition with prayer to direct the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners for the posts applied, on the basis of written test held on 20.1.2013.

Notices were issued to the respondents and official respondents filed their comments wherein claim of petitioners has been denied on the ground that neither the petitioners submitted applications for such appointment nor appeared in written test held on 20.01.2013. It has been stated that the recruitment for the subject posts was made in accordance with law after completing all codal formalities. It appears that on the direction of this Court the entire record with regard to appointment made by the respondents has been placed on record which consists the list of successful candidates who passed written test and also appointments orders issued in their favour. However record shows that the names of petitioners are nowhere mentioned in record of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners was specifically confronted with the record produced by the respondents and was asked to produce any document which may support the claim of petitioners that they were qualified for such recruitment process, however, nothing has been placed on record to support their claim. The facts as stated by petitioners, have been controverted by the respondents whereas the petitioners have not been able to respond to the query of this Court as to whether the petitioners participated in the recruitment process.

In view of hereinabove disputed facts and in absence of any evidence to support the claim of the petitioners, we are not inclined to examine the disputed facts. Accordingly, the petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed.

J U D G E

Irfan/PA