ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.D-1330 of 2014

Date                            Order with signature of Judge

Present

Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar

Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi

Rahan Rasheed …………….v/s………………….Federation of Pakistan

& others

27.10.2016

Mr. Khurshid Khan, Advocate for Petitioner

Mr. Ghulam Hyder Sheikh, Advocate for Respondent

Mr. Farooq Rashid, Advocate

Mr. Liaquat Hussain, Standing Counsel

Mr. Riaz Ahmed, Addl. Director, HR, CAA

Mr. Atif Sattar, Dy. Director, HR, CAA

                        --------------------

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.   The petitioner applied for the post of Airworthiness Surveyor (Avionics) (PG-08) in Civil Aviation Authority in response to the advertisement published in the newspapers. The petitioner appeared in the test as well as interview, but he could not qualify according to CAA, while the petitioner raised the plea that he obtained 57 marks in the test, whereas Sahil Ali Khan obtained 48 marks, but he has been appointed. On the contrary, the respondent submitted overall merit list against advertisement No.83/2011 duly signed by four Committee Members, which shows that Sahil Ali Khan obtained 75 marks in the interview and 48 marks in the written test, while the petitioner obtained 41 marks in the interview, and 57 marks in the written test, therefore, he could not qualify the merit for the post.

2.         Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out a letter dated 24.3.2014 signed by Mr. Atif Sattar, A/Corporate Manager HR (R&S), whereby the petitioner was informed that he could not achieve the required merit in the written test conducted by NTS, therefore, he was not called for the interview for the said post. While in the merit list produced today, it is mentioned that the petitioner appeared in the interview as well, which fact is also mentioned in paragraph 8 of the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that Mr. Atif Sattar issued this letter under some misconception and misunderstanding who is also present in court, however, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 submits that there is no such post available right now but he undertakes that next advertisement will be published for this post in 2017, when the petitioner will be called and he may apply afresh and if he is found eligible, his case will be considered on merits properly by the management.

3.         Under the constitutional jurisdiction, we cannot exercise the powers to record the evidence but the matter may be disposed off on the available documents. The overall merit list has been produced today, in which the score of written test as well as interview has been mentioned and this merit list has been duly signed by the four officials of the higher management, while the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a manipulated result which cannot be decided without recording evidence. It is also well settled that disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. Since the counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has already given undertaking, therefore, learned counsel for petitioner is satisfied to join the new process in the year 2017. The petition is disposed off along with pending applications accordingly.

Copy of this order may be transmitted to the Director General, CAA. Office is directed to place copy of this order in connected files.

Judge

Judge

Nisar/pa