ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C.P No. D- 1331 of 2014

________________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case (Priority).

1. For hearing of CMA 2048/2017 (S/A)

2. For hearing of CMA 5740/2014 (S/A)

3. For hearing of main case.

BEFORE:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, J.

Mr. Justice Zulifqar Ali Sangi, J.

Date of hearing: 01-09-2021.

Date of Order: 01-09-2021.

Mr. Achar Khan Gabol and Abdul Hafeez Irfan Advocates for the petitioners.

M/s Ghulam Abbass Akhter and Khuda Bakhsh Chohan Advocates for respondents.

Mr. Muhammad HamzoBuriro, D.A.G.

O R D E R.

Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, J.. Through this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s).

1) That this Honourable High Court may be pleased to declare an act of holding fresh selection by ignoring the successful candidates of 15-04-2013 as illegal and void to direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to finalize the selections process of 2013 and issue letters to the petitioners for passing medical test and to issue appointment orders before holding fresh selections.

2) Any suitable relief which the honourable high Court deems fit along with Costs of this petition.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to advertisement dated 25.10.2012 issued by respondents, the petitioners applied for the post of constable and passed written test held on 15.04.2013; that they were not appointed and again on 08.05.2013 another advertisement was published; however, it was provided that persons who had already passed the earlier written test are not required to participate; that despite that no appointment was made and once again on 16.04.2014 another advertisement was published, and thereafter appointments have been made; that petitioners have been left out without any lawful excuse; that petitioners had no knowledge of the last advertisement dated 16.04.2014; hence they could not participate; that the petitioners are still eligible and therefore directions be issued for their appointment.

On the other hand respondents’ counsels submit that insofar as the first two advertisements and passing of written test is concerned, it is not disputed that the petitioners had passed the test; however, at the relevant time there was a complete ban on fresh appointments, therefore petitioners were not appointed; that through advertisement dated 16.04.2014 a fresh exercise of appointments was conducted wherein it was specifically provided that even persons who had earlier passed the written test in 2013, are required to apply afresh; that pursuant to the last advertisement the test was carried out through National Testing Service (NTS); hence the petitioners ought to have participated. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record.Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, though they had passed the first written test on 15.04.2013; however, in the third and last advertisement published on 16.04.2014, the last date for submission of applications was 5.5.2014 and it was specifically provided that those persons who had earlier participated in the process and had passed the written test, were also required to participate afresh and appear in the test being carried out through NTS. The petitioners chose not to participate. It appears that this petition was filed on 23.04.2014 i.e. much prior to the last date of application, whereas, the petitioners’ counsel has argued that the petitioners had no knowledge about publication of the third and last advertisement dated 16.04.2014. This on the face of it is an incorrect statement, as admittedly they were fully aware of the third advertisement dated 16.04.2014 as it has been annexed with the memo of petition at page 47, and when this petition was filed the last date for submission of applications had not yet expired. In that case, either they were required to seek some interim orders from the Court permitting them to participate; or in the alternative restrain respondents from completing the process of appointments. This never happened, and it is too late to issue any directions for their appointment, which even otherwise is not made out.

Moreover, the third and final test was to be carried out through NTS, whereas, the earlier test was done by the respondent department; hence they cannot be deemed to be qualified for the purpose of appointments.

It is needles to observe that appointment to the post of constable is a matter of competence and fitness relatable to qualification and age as well, therefore, at this stage, even otherwise, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of petitioners.

Lastly, it has been informed that Petitioner No.3, after filing of this petition had participated in the process initiated through the third advertisement dated 16.4.2014, and after going through the test has qualified and stands appointed. This further weakens the stance of the petitioner’s counsel that petitioners had no knowledge about the third advertisement for appointments.

In view of herein above the facts and circumstances of this case by means of a short order in the earlier part of the day this petition was dismissed and these are the reasons thereof.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.