IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Present:
Irshad Ali Shah, J.
Agha Faisal, J.
CP D 243 of 2016 : Salamat Ali &Others vs.
Regional Director, Director of College Education Larkana &Others
For the Petitioners : Mr.Ghayoor Abbas M. Shahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl. A.G.
Dates of hearing : 12.01.2022
Date of announcement : 12.01.2022
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. The petitioners were alleged to have forged appointments and therefore directed to appear before an enquiry committee, vide notice dated 03.03.2016. In such regard an opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioners vide another notice dated 03.03.2016. The present petition, pending since 2016, has impugned the aforesaid notices and inter alia seeks declarations from this court that the appointment of the petitioners was made in accordance with the law; the purported merit list pertaining to the petitioners was genuine; and seeks placing of a restraintupon the respondents from holding the impugned enquiry. The diary demonstrates that issue of maintainability had been raised by this court on the very first date and remains pending till date.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel was required to address the court with respect to the maintainability of the petition. Learned counsel submitted that the record of initial appointments of the petitioners ought to be evaluated by this court in the light of purported documentation placed on file, subsequent to the institution hereof, as the respondents would be unable to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. Respectfully, we find ourselves unable to concur with the argument articulated by the petitioners' counsel.
3. The issue before us is of bogus employees. Whether one or more of the petitioners falls into the said category or otherwise is a matter requiring detailed enquiry and appreciation of facts and record. It is settled law that the adjudication of disputed questions of fact, requiring evidence etc., is not amenable in the exercise of writ jurisdiction[1].
4. Article 199 of the Constitution contemplates the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court and the said discretion may be exercised in the absence of an adequate remedy. In the present matter admittedlya forum has been provided to ascertain the veracity of the petitioners' employment / grievance and no case has been set forth before us to permit the petitioners to abjure the designated forum.
5. The petitioners remain at liberty to state their case before the designated forum and shall have recourse to the appropriate jurisdiction of law in the event that they are aggrieved with the conclusion of the proceedings, however, no case is made out to require this Court to perform the fact finding endeavor of the relevant department.
6. In view hereof, we are constrained to observe that in the lis before us the petitioners' counsel has been unable to set forth a case for the invocation of the discretionary[2] writ jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the listed petition, and pending applications, is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE