C.P No. D – 2848 of 2015

 

Date	Order with signature of Judge

 

For hearing of C.M.A No. 11283/2015.

 

28-10-2015

 

Mr. Shamsuddin Rajper, advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Zulifqar Ali Sangi, learned A.A.G.

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

          Through instant petition, petitioners have prayer for the following reliefs:

(a)            This Court may be pleased to declare that the act of the respondent No.4 by not issuing the appointment order to the petitioners, despite the fact that they have been declared as successful candidates in the merit list and respondent No.4 may be directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioners, as they have qualified the requirements for the posts of Police Constable.

(b)            That this court may be pleased to declare that the act of the respondent No.4 not appointing the Police Constables out of the merit list, is illegal, malafide, null and void as such the appointment orders, if any issued may be cancelled.

(c)            To restrain the respondents not to appoint any other person and keep the three posts of Police Constables vacant, till final disposal of this petition.

          Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Police Constables pursuant to advertisement issued in the newspaper in the year 2011, however, respondents instead of appointing the petitioners, have appointed some other persons who are not eligible. When learned counsel for the petitioners was required to refer to any document with regard to entitlement of the petitioners or their participation in the recruitment process, to which he could not refer to any such document nor has been able to assist this court as to why after expiry of four years instant petition has been filed, whereas, it appears that vague allegations have been leveled in the recruitment process which was initiated in the year 2011.

          From the perusal of contents of petition, it appears that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any cause of action for their entitlement even to file instant petition, whereas no specific relief has been claimed by the petitioners in this regard.

          Accordingly, we are of the view that instant petition besides being vague and having been filed without any substance also suffers from latches which have not been explained. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine along with listed application.

 

                                                                                                  Judge

                                                                      Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A