Constt: Petition No.D–1743 of 2016






                                                                        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:            26.01.2023


Mr. Abdul Raqeeb, Advocate alongwith petitioner

Mr. Ali Raza Balouch, AAG


ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J.-     Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks release of salaries alongwith allowances and benefits.


2.         The essential facts mentioned in the memo of the petition are that petitioner being disable approached the competent authority for his appointment as PST on disable quota, such directions were issued by the competent authority to respondent No.2 for appointment. Accordingly, respondent No.2 issued appointment order for the post of PST on 20.04.2011 and on 21.04.2011 he submitted duty report but till yet the salary of the petitioner has not been released. Hence, he has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

3.         Notices were issued to the respondents. According to learned AAG the appointment of the petitioner found to be ineligible and bogus; hence, no case is made out.

4.         When confronted with the facts that posts were advertised in the newspaper, the Counsel couldn’t satisfy regarding this question and answer that petitioner is not at fault and is being penalized due to political differences from time to time; hence, he is entitled for the relief as prayed.

            The similar petition was filed before this Court bearing No.D-3886/14 and on perusal of the order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in the above petition reflects that 222 persons on teaching side and 20 of non-teaching side were appointed without due process of recruitment. Whereafter inquiry was also initiated and such appointments were found to be fabricated. The Honourable Bench dismissed the petition while observing as under;

“Under the given circumstances, when the legality of the petitioner’s appointment has been denied by the competent authority and the and the order relied upon has been found to have been a product of manipulation with consequent action having followed as against the official with consequent action having followed  as against the official culpable in that regard, and as where such appointments have been declared to be illegal, which itself has not been challenged by the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in terms of the petition, which is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs”.


 The appointment order of the petitioner has also been issued by the same Officer and pertains to the same period. Since, an order has already been passed in respect of identical appointment by the same officer and during the same period, hence, we are bound by the said order.

            In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of this case and the order already passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition and grant the relief as prayed. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

                                                                                                                           J U D G E


                                                                                                                   J U D G E