ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-3546 of 2015

____________________________________________________________

Order with signature of Judge

Present : Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar

Mr. Justice Abdul Ghani Soomro

Al-Haj Abul Barkat……………………..……………….….Petitioner

Versus

Province of Sindh and 08 others…………………....Respondents

Date of Hearing:- 08.08.2016

Petitioner is present alongwith

his counsel Dr.Raana Khan, advocate

Mr.M.B.Khatian, advocate for the respondent No.2,3,5 and 6

Barrister Waleed Khanzada, advocate for the respondent/SESSI

Mr.Abdul Jalil Zubedi, AAG

………

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J: The petitioner has challenged the reversion order dated 5^th June, 2015, which was issued in pursuance of the order of hon’ble Supreme Court relating to directions in connection with the out of turn promotions. The petitioner was promoted from BS-17 to BS-18, which order was ultimately recalled vide order dated 05.06.2015. The court framed the question of maintainability with the directions to learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to 2015 SCMR 456 (Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v.Province of Sindh) and argued that vide Para-154 of the judgment, the apex court abated the petitions and suits with the directions to the parties to approach the apex court if they have not filed review petition earlier. They categorically argued that this petition is not maintainable against reversion of the petitioner from BS-18 to BS-17 in pursuance of judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court and appropriate remedy is to approach the apex court and file review petition. In addition thereto, they have also relied upon two judgments of learned Division Bench of this court reported in 1991 PLC (C.S.) 530 and 2011 PLC 153 in which it was held that the rules framed by governing body of SESSI cannot be equated with statutory rules, hence constitution petitions were not found maintainable.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.06.2015 issued by the respondents in pursuance of hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment as the promotion of petitioner was considered out of turn. While the counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was properly promoted in terms of relevant regulations. Be that as it may, this controversy cannot be decided by this court when specific directions have been given by the apex court in aforesaid judgment to file review petition by aggrieved persons in the apex court. Learned counsel for the SESSI has confirmed that now the petitioner is performing his duties in BS-17 as Deputy Director and he will be allowed to continue his job with all benefits and privileges admissible to an officer performing duty in BS-17. On this statement, the counsel for the petitioner is satisfied and she wants to file review petition in the apex court on the instructions of the petitioner, who is also present in court.

In view of above terms, the petition is disposed of accordingly.

J U D G E

J U D G E

Ashraf