C.P.No.D-3574 of 2015

1. For orders on CMA-10071/2015

2. For orders on CMA-10072/2015

3. For Katcha Peshi

06.10.2015

Syed Zafar Ali Shah Bukhari Advocate for petitioner.

...............

1.            Granted.

2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3. Through instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner to be appointed on the post of Senior Accountant (BPS-14), as according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is eligible to be appointed on the aforesaid post. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner participated in the recruitment process in the year 2010 pursuant to advertisement available at page 13 as annexure “A”, whereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written test, however, his name was not mentioned in the list of the candidates, who were declared eligible. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner approached the respondents with the request for his appointment on the aforesaid post vide letter dated 15.05.2012, whereafter, a letter was issued from the office of Controller General of Accounts dated 25.06.2012 to the Director Accounts, Pakistan Post Office Department, Lahore, forwarding the request of the petitioner, however, in spite lapse of considerable time the petitioner’s case has not been considered.

From perusal of contents of the petition, it appears that the petitioner has not pointed out any error in the recruitment process, which started in the year 2010 and has mainly alleged that petitioner appeared in the interviews whereafter, his name did not appear in the successful candidates. It has been further contended that his case for appointment has not been considered by the respondent in spite of written request dated 15.5.2012. Petitioner seeks his appointment in BPS-14, on the basis of his representation as referred to hereinabove, which cannot be considered by this Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction. Instant petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned respondents i.e. Director Accounts, pursuant to his written request for appointment as referred to hereinabove, who shall decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the letter dated 25.6.2012 available at page 25 as Annexure ‘F’ of instant petition. Petitioner is also at liberty to apply afresh for any vacancy if available in the respondent’s department as per rules, if he qualifies for such appointment, in accordance with law.

JUDGE

JUDGE

N.M.