IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Constt:
Petition No.D–2819 of
2011
|
DATE
OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF
JUDGE. |
1.
For hearing of CMA No.9897/11
2.
For hearing of main case.
Date of hearing: 05.11.2020
M/s
Khan Mohammad Sangi and Achar Khan Gabole Advocates for petitioners.
Mr.
Zulfiqar Ali Naich AAG.
********
Through
instant Constitutional petition, petitioners have challenged the act the
respondents appointing the respondents No.7 to 19 on political grounds without
lawful authority and discriminatory treatment has been done with the
petitioners. However, the Counsel for the petitioners already withdrawn the
prayer clause-b of this petition.
2. Learned
Counsel for petitioners contended that the main grievance of the petitioners
are that they have donated the plot to the Education Department free of costs
for the construction of the girls School and the respondents No. 7 to 19 who are stranger to the village Shahban
Lashari in violation of basic norms of law and discrimination has been made
with the petitioners for
not appointment the petitioner due to political figures on the basis of nepotism and
favoritism and have deprived them from their
legal and legitimate rights.
3. Learned
AAG submits that the respondents No.7 to 19
were appointed in accordance with law as they are local inhabitant and familiar
to the Village Shahban Lashari hence, the claim of the petitioners in respect
of appointment of the respondents is against the norms of law. He submits that
instant petition may be dismissed being meritless.
4. Heard learned
Counsel for parties.
5. In
response to notice, the respondent No.4 Executive District Education Officer,
Ghotki @ Mirpur Mathelo has furnished his comments. In reply of the comments, the respondent No.4
negated the stance of petitioners as the respondent No.7 to 19 were appointed
after fulfillment of all legal codal formalities. Besides, the respondents Nos.
7 to 19 are local persons and no one is stranger from outside. From the perusal
of letter dated 20.04.2010 issued by Head Mistress Government High School
Shahban Lashari, it appears that petitioners have not made Javed Ahmed Lashari,
Nazir Ahmed Lashari, Riaz Ahmed Lashari, Ghulam Sarwar Lashari and Shah Dino
Lashari as party in the array of respondents for the reasons best known to
them. The claim of the petitioners has vehemently been denied by the official respondents
in their comments that no stranger has been appointed in the respondents’
department. The petitioners have also
failed to point out that they were discriminated upon by the respondents by
appointing the respondents 7 to 19. Furthermore, there is no complaint that the
petitioners have been discriminated against and other similarly placed candidates
given the appointment letters. Learned Counsel for petitioner has failed to
point out any irregularity or illegality in the recruitment process for
appointment of respondents 7 to 19 which may have deprived the right of
appointment of petitioners. In such circumstances, the appointing authority may
use the discretion vested with them like petitioners’ appointments.
6. We have carefully considered all the facts stated (supra) and come to the conclusion that disputed questions
so also factual controversy is involved in this petition which cannot be
resolved under writ jurisdiction of this Court as the same is to be resolved by
the competent Court of law after recording evidence. Accordingly, instant petition being misconceived is dismissed along with listed application.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Ihsan.