ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P. No. D- 939 of 2011

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

25.3.2014

Present :

Mr. Justice, Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi

Mr. Justice, Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar

Mr. Ahsan Gul Dahri advocate for petitioners

Mr. A.B. Soomro Addl.A.G.

Mr. M. Yousif, advocate / Law Officer on behalf of respondent No.3.

MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, J.- Through instant petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief :

a. Declare that the petitioners are qualified and experienced candidates for the posts of Assistant Horticulturist, Assistant Agronomist and Agronomy Line, all (BPS-17) respectively in Agriculture Department, Government of Sindh and are entitled for their appointments on the above posts.

b. Direct the respondent No.3 / Sindh Public Service Commission to recommend the petitioners for their appointment on the still vacant posts for recommendation of Assistant Horticulturist, Assistant Agronomist and Agronomy Line, all (BPS-17) and further direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to appoint the petitioners on the said posts.

c. Declare that the act of the respondent No.5 of ousting the petitioner No.1, who is disable, person, from the interview / examination room is illegal, unlawful, based on personal grudge and is condemnable.

2. Briefly the facts in the instant petition are that the petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 17.5.2009 published by respondent No.3 (Sindh Public Service Commission), applied for the posts of Assistant Horticulturist (BPS-17), Assistant Agronomist (BPS-17) and Agronomy Line (BPS-17). It is further stated that though the applications forms of the petitioners were completed in all respect but they received rejection letters issued by respondent No.3. However, the petitioners thereafter re-submitted their applications along with all required documents; they were allowed to appear in the examinations/ interviews. It is alleged by the petitioners that owing to the fact of respondent No.;5 (Director General Agriculture Research) the petitioner No.1 was ousted from the interview room without assigning any reason. Finally the respondent No.3 announced results and the petitioners applications have been rejected for the reasons that they do not have requisite experience as required for the said post. The petitioners being aggrieved with rejection have filed the instant petition.

3. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 have filed their comments jointly and have challenged the contentions of the petitioner as according them the petitioners applications were rejected by respondent No.3 which is a competent authority in the matter and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Mr. M. Yousif, Law Officer of respondent No.3 has filed comments on their behalf and have conceded that though in so far as the minimum qualification required for the said post is concerned, the petitioners were qualified to that extent, however, they were also required to produce experience certificates in the relevant field and since they have failed to do so, their applications were rejected by the commission / respondent No.3. Learned counsel further contended that in so far as the experience certificates produced by the petitioners were concerned they were of NGO and are from private sector, therefore, could not be considered by the commission / respondent No.3, hence the instant petition does not merit any consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard all the learned counsel and have perused the record. By consent, the instant petition is being disposed of at katcha peshi stage.

6. It appears that the petitioners pursuant to advertisement dated 17.5.2009 had applied for the posts as referred to above and their applications were rejected by respondent No.3 for the reason that they did not possess the relevant experience as required for the post and duly advertised by the commission / respondent No.3. The only controversy appears is, as to whether the experience certificates so produced by the petitioners are relevant and whether or not are to be accepted by respondent No.3. In our view, in so far as the authenticity and credibility of such experience certificates is concerned, is a matter which requires factual inquiry which this court cannot do under constitutional jurisdiction. We are also of the view that the commission / respondent No.3 is the appropriate authority to conduct / recruitment through a process which in the instant matter has been dully followed and such process is not disputed by the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is only with respect of non-acceptance of their experience certificate. We have also examined these certificates and have noticed that barring one which was issued by NGO namely Safwco ( Sindh Agriculture and Forestry Workers Coordinating Organization) and others are from private sector. In our view the commission / respondent No.3 is the appropriate authority and also has technical members to assist with regard to the acceptability of any such certificate. Further the respondent No.3 through its comments has also annexed a letter / undertaking given by the petitioner No.1, such certificate duly certified / counter signed by the Director General Research within three days from the date of interview, however, the petitioner No.1 also failed to produced any such certificate.

7. In view of such position, we have dismissed the instant petition by means of short order dated 25.3.2014 and the above are the reasons for such dismissal.

JUDGE

k/-