IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR

C.P No.D-1569 of 2016

Petitioner: Miss. Saima Phull, through Mr. J. K. Jarwar, Advocate.

Respondents No.1 to 4: Through Mr. Ali Raza Balouch, Assistant Advocate General

Respondent No.5: Nemo.

Date of hearing: 29.09.2021

Date of decision: 29.09.2021

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this petition, the Petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

a) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the Petitioner is successful candidate and she is liable to be appointed as Primary School Teacher at Government Girls Primary School Village Nathar Detha UC Phull Taluka and District Naushahro Feroze for which the Petitioner is liable to be appointed.

b) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to strictly and sternly direct the Respondents (Education department Authorities) to recognize the genuine, superior and preferential right of the Petitioner for the post of Primary School Teacher and issue her the offer order according to merit list by treating her at par with the other candidates who had similarly passed the written test alongwith Petitioner and were appointed accordingly.”

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the very outset, submits that after the advertisement of vacancies in education deportment, Petitioner applied for the post of Primary School Teacher and in this regard written test was conducted on 20.01.2013, petitioner appeared and obtained 77 marks, being candidate from UC Phull. He next submits that the said appointments were made on Union Council level, therefore, Petitioner was entitled for appointment as PST; however Respondents have appointed Miss. Sanam Nawab against the policy as she was belonging to UC-Koor Hassan not from UC Phull and in view of such circumstances, he prayed that petition be allowed and the official Respondents may be directed to appoint the Petitioner as PST.

3. Learned Assistant Advocate General has contended that as per comments of Respondent No.4, there was no any female vacancy in UC-Phull nor Respondent No.5, Miss Sanam Nawab, was appointed in UC-Phull; however she was appointed in UC-Koor Hassan. Since there was no any female vacancy in UC-Phull, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for appointment and the petition in hand is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General and have carefully examined the material available on record with their able assistance.

5. The Respondent No.4 has submitted chart with regard to Need Based Vacancies of PST, District Naushahro Feroze, approved by RSU Sindh. According to said chart, there is no vacancy in UC-Phull for the female candidate. Respondent No.4 has also filed the result of Respondent No.5 namely Miss. Sanam Nawab Goraho, which reflects that she was a candidate from UC-Koor Hassan and not from UC-Phull. As per comments of Respondent No.4, Miss Sanam Nawab was appointed in UC-Koor Hassan but due to controversy of location of GGPS Nathar Detha, which either in UC Koor Hassan or in UC Phull, the place of posting in respect of Miss Sanam Goraho, has been changed from GGPS Nathar Detha to GGPS Lal Bux Lund, located at UC-Koor Hassan.

6. We have considered the statement filed by Respondent No.5 wherein she has stated that she has applied from UC-Koor Hassan and was appointed; however subsequently, she applied through proper channel for the post of JEST and accordingly she was declared successful and was appointed for the same post.

7. The plea taken by the learned counsel that the petitioner qualified the written test for the post of PST and is entitled for the appointment, in this regard, we are of the view that mere passing written test could not, by itself, vest a candidate with the fundamental right for enforcing a Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly the authorities had not issued any offer of appointment to the Petitioner and appointment to the post was subject to the availability of vacancy as mentioned in the advertisement at condition 1(i). We have also noted from the advertisement that the appointment of the candidates was on contract basis for three years for the posts applied by the candidates and apparently such period has already expired. It is a settled principle of law that for the purpose of maintaining a Constitution Petition it is the duty and obligation of the Petitioner to point out that the action of the Respondents was in violation of their rules and regulations, which the learned counsel for Petitioner failed to point out and thus failed to make out a case for appointment. Resultantly instant petition is dismissed.

J U D G E

J U D G E