ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C.P No. D-940 of 2012

Date	Order with signature of Judge

For Katcha Peshi.

29-03-2016

Mr. Sohail Ahmad Khoso, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh a/w Nisar Ahmed Memon, D.E.O (Primary) Naushehro Feroze.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Through instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a. To direct the respondent No.2 to issue the joining order to the petitioner, because petitioner qualified test of PST, name of the petitioner was appeared in the merit list from Sr. No. 28 of U.C Fatoo Bilal, Taluka Moro, District Naushehro Feroz

b. To grant injunction against the respondent No.2 and restraining him not to issue the order against the seat of the petitioner for the post of Primary School Teacher/ PST till decision of this petition by this Court according to law.

c. To grant any other relief, which this Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

d. To award the costs of this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that the reliefs sought by the petitioner under similar circumstances have been granted to another petitioner namely, Rasheed Ahmad in C.P No. D-16 of 2012 vide order dated 16.09.2014, whereby the petition has been allowed and the respondents have been directed to accommodate the petitioner in accordance with law after fulfillment of all the legal and codal formalities. Whereas, it has been further held that the reason for not giving the appointment to the petitioner by the respondents that the petitioner does not belong to U.C Fatoo Bilal, Taluka Moro, has been found to be incorrect. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the aforesaid order passed in the aforesaid petition.

3. Notices of instant petition were issued to the respondents. Pursuant to which, comments have been filed. Wherein it has been stated that since the documents furnished by the petitioner did not disclose the fact regarding residence of petitioner in U.C Fatoo Bilal, therefore, his case has not been considered for appointment. It has been further stated that the petitioner also did not qualify on merits, as his name appears on Sr. No. 28, whereas, the appointments were given in the aforesaid U.C upto Sr. No. 24. During the course of hearing, the concerned D.C Naushehro Feroze was directed to ascertain the permanent residence of the petitioner, who has submitted his report, according to which, it has come on record that the petitioner is permanent resident of U.C Fatoo Bilal, whereas, from perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner along with instant petition particularly, the certificate of residence issued from the office of U.C Fatoo Bilal, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to his residence in U.C Fatoo Bilal appears to be correct, while confronted with such factual position, learned Additional Advocate General could not controvert the same, however, submits that since the considerable period has already lapse from the date of recruitments which were made in the year 2008, whereas the petitioner has not remained vigilant to pursue the remedies, therefore, instant petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches. It has been further stated that even otherwise, the petitioner's name has been mentioned at Sr. No. 28 of the merit list in respect of U.C Fatoo Bilal, whereas, as per his instructions, initial appointments were given to the candidates whose names appeard upto Sr. No. 24 on merits, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this court. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on a judgment dated 01.04.2015 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Petition No. 186-K of 2013. Copy of such judgment has been placed on record along with statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has placed copy of order dated 12.06.2015, passed in CPLA No. 395-K of 2014, which was filed against an order passed by D.B of this Court in C.P No. D-60/2012 in respect of petitioner Rasheed Ahmed, and submits that the respondents themselves did not press the aforesaid petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court and undertaken to accommodate the petitioner, who according to the learned counsel, has already been given appointment. It has been prayed that similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner, who is being discriminated by the respondents with ulterior motive. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the relief to the petitioner Rasheed Ahmed was also extended by Division Bench of this Court in the year 2014, therefore, the ground of latches under the circumstances is not attracted in the instant case, particularly, when the very basis of declining the appointment to the petitioner is found to be incorrect.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in C.P No. D-60/2012. Admittedly, the facts relating to instant petition are similar to the facts of petitioner namely Rasheed Ahmad in C.P No. D-60/2012, whereas, the reliefs claimed are also the same. Record further reflects that the plea taken by the respondents while not considering the case of the petitioner with reference to his permanent address, is found to be incorrect. Accordingly, we hold that the reason shown by the respondents with regard to permanent residence of the petitioner Amanullah is also incorrect. We are in agreement with the contention of learned Additional Advocate General with regard to latches, which ground has also been proved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Arif and others V/S Province of Sindh and others in CPLA No.395-K of 2014 and in Civil Petition No. 186-K of 2013 vide order dated 01.04.2015 placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General, however, since under similar circumstances, the petitioner has been granted relief and the respondents themselves have not challenged the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in C.P No. D-60/2012 the State withdrew such CPLA as referred to hereinabove. We are not inclined to non suit the petitioner on the technical point of latches.

5. Accordingly, we dispose of instant petition with directions to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for his appointment as PST in U.C Fatoo Bilal strictly in accordance with law on merits as per rule and policies and if there is some post is still lying vacant with the respondents, the petitioner may be considered, however, subject to fulfillment of all codal formalities.

Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A