Constt: Petition No.D–1673 of 2018






                                                                        Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, J.

                                                                        Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho, J

For hearing of main case



Date of hearing:        18.01.2023

Date of order:            31.01.2023



Petitioners Khalil Ahmed and Rustam Ali present, in person.

Mr. Noor Hassan Malik, AAG


ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J.-     Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s);



(a)    That this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to declare the act of respondents for not appointing the petitioners is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.


(b)  To direct the respondents to issue appointment order to petitioners as constable on merit, as the petitioners had qualified on merit, as the petitioners had qualified all the required test prescribed in advertisement”.



2.         The essential facts mentioned in the memo of the petition are that petitioners have applied for the Constables as advertised through various newspapers as well as website of Sindh Police, through the process of general recruitment undertaken by the said department in respect of District Sukkur during the period 2013-14 and they have participated in the testing process

3.         It was contended by the petitioners that having passed the written test, relevant medical examination, withstood scrutiny of their educational credentials, they stood selected on merit but nonetheless were not issued appointment/posting orders hence, seeking their appointment as Constable in the Provincial Police Department, and towards that end have prayed that the respondents be directed to issue appointment orders in their favour to that effect.

4.         Perusal of the report submitted by Recruitment Committee comprising on four members constituted by IGP Sindh Karachi reveals that IGP Sindh Karachi vide letter No.2891-2902/EB-III/T-7/S&S dated 03.03.2014 received through DIGP Sukkur Range under endorsement No.E.II/3261-65 dated 05.03.2014 physical tests/measurements were started at the venue of P.S Abad (District Sukkur) on 15.3.2014 under the supervision of ASP HQrs Sukkur  vide SSP’s Officer  order dated 11.03.2014, 1699 candidates succeeded to pass the physical test and on directions of IGP vide letter No.2891-2902/E.B-III/T-7/S&S dated 03.03.2014 the candidates, who succeeded in physical test were invited to appear in written test held on 25.03.2014, out of which 1254 candidates succeeded to pass the written test. The final interview was conducted by the Recruitment Committee under the chairmanship of DIGP Sukkur Range, wherein 748 candidates were declared as passed in the Interview. Thereafter final list of 427 candidates according to merit list duly approved by IGP Sindh Karachi vide his letter dated 13.06.2014 for appoint. Thereafter, 422 candidates who fulfilled the requisite criteria of medical and character verification etc. were issued the appointment orders from amongst these candidates; however, petitioners Khalil Ahmed Kandhro and Rustam Ali Janwri had appeared in this recruitment process but had failed to qualify the final interview by the Recruitment Committee therefore, they were not issued appointment letters. On 07.11.2017 both petitioners alongwith other candidates had appeared before then DIGP Sukkur Range submitted a joint application for redressal of their grievance regarding not being appointed as Police Constable during General Recruitment 2013-14 as they were qualified physical and written test and had performed duties on different occasions but they were not formally appointed as Police Constable. By not considering the petitioners they have filed instant petition and in this regard the fact finding committee has been constituted  which after examining  the case in detail has opined that mere issuance of letters for verification or medical examination to candidates who have otherwise failed in the Recruitment process does not establish any claim for recruitment; however, Article 29 of Police Order 2002 also allows the District Police Officer to appoint special police officers for special purposes or occasions when the police available to him is not sufficient to assist  the police under his command. As a routine, auxiliary personnel such as from PQR etc. are also utilized for policing purpose during occasions such as Muharram etc.; however, this does not create any right for the persons performing such duties to be appointed permanently in the Police Department. Besides, committee was also apprised that claims on similar ground of 20 petitioners in numerous petitions have already been dismissed by this Court.

5.         Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the petitioners and examined the respective pleadings and material placed on record including report of Recruitment Committee, it appears to us that, prima facie, a systematic and objective process has been followed for the purpose of recruitment, faced with this position petitioners were at a loss to make out a case of unreasonableness or irrationality/irrelevance of criteria  in so far as the methodology employed for recruitment was concerned, or otherwise demonstrate a lack of probity on the part of the respondents in that record.  Nor could be shown that any discrimination had taken place by virtue of any other applicant who was similarly placed to the petitioners in terms of having failed  the interview nonetheless being accommodated and given employment to their exclusion and detriment. The para-7 of the report submitted by Recruitment Committee clearly reveals that both petitioners have failed to qualify the final interview held by the Recruitment Committee hence, they are not claiming to be successful candidates. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that in the absence of violation of any fundamental right, the petitioners have failed to make out a case warranting exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 in   respect of the relief elicited in terms of the instant petition.

6.         These are the reasons for the short order dated 18.01.2023. However, while disposing of the present petition as an indulgence petitioners are at liberty to apply afresh before concerned authorities as their period/age does not permit them to file a fresh application due to lengthy litigation which application the concerned authorities may consider on its own merits.


                                                                                                                           J U D G E


                                                                                                                          J U D G E