ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P.No.D- 1609  of  2014

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

14.12.2016.

Mr. Bhagwandas Bheel, Advocate for petitioner alongwith petitioner.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G. alongwith Raja Shah Imran, D.C. Dadu and Ghulam Mushtaque Khoso, Accounts Officer and Litigation Officer, DEO, Dadu.

                                    =

            Through instant petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:-

“A       To direct the respondent No.01 to 05 to re-examine the merit lists prepared by them and shall replace all the persons, whose names are inserted on wrong, fabricated particulars, or by mistake, by the petitioner and other deserving persons as held by this Honourable Court in reported case 2012 CLC 16 Sindh.

B)        To declare that the revised domicile issued by the Respondent No.5 after the test are illegal, null void and against the law.

C)        To retain the respondent No.01 to 05 from issuance of fresh appointment orders till re-examination/verification of the documents submitted by the respondent No.06 and 07.”

2.         Precisely, relevant facts of the case are that petitioner applied for the post of JST in UC Johi Town; appeared in NTS; succeeded while standing on 2^nd position in Johi Urban female; subsequently, during scrutiny DRC has issued appointment orders in favour of the respondents No.6 and 7 whereas petitioner was deprived. The record shows that respondent No.7 was appointed on minority whereas respondent No.6 was appointed on obtaining fresh domicile of Johi Town after getting her earlier domicile cancelled by making an application to the Deputy Commissioner.

3.         Result of the petitioner is not disputed and even it is not disputed that petitioner is resident of Johi Town who however stood deprived on appointment of respondent no.6 with reference to fresh domicile. 

4.         Deputy Commissioner present admits that earlier domicile was issued wherein respondent No.6 was shown resident of Village Chutto Khan Solangi UC Kamal Khan Taluka and District Dadu. It is also not disputed that respondent No.6 applied and appeared in that test from UC Kamal Khan. Such document is available at Page 87 which is the result sheet of NTS wherein it is mentioned UC Kamal Khan wherefrom respondent No.6 Sadaf Naz applied. Admittedly, posts were called on need base education policy with World Bank and this post was for that UC. Therefore, an otherwise failed candidate cannot be allowed to defeat the ‘result’ by maneuvering in any manner. The manner, in which the respondent no.6 was allowed to disturb the result of UC Johi Town by getting fresh domicile of such UC while getting her earlier domicile of “UC Kamal Khan” cancelled, cannot be approved particularly when it was / is causing a serious prejudice to present petitioner who was entitled for job unless the official respondents allowed respondent no.6 to replace the present petitioner (standing at 2^nd place in merit-list) for one of two posts of Johi Town where three posts were lying vacant.

5.         Without prejudice to the case of respondents No.6 and 7, petitioner was entitled for that post as per her marks and merit-list of UC Johi town therefore, any subsequent changes in domicile of a candidate of other UC should not have resulted in costing petitioner’s earned entitlement for job which otherwise is a vested right, however, she was deprived from her legitimate right. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. Respondent No.4 shall issue the appointment order in favour of petitioner within one month with compliance report.       

                                                                                                                        JUDGE

                                                                        JUDGE

Tufail