ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

C. P. No.D-1185 of 2009

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

01.02.2017.

For hearing of M. A. No.1356/2013.

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for petitioner, alongwith petitioner.

Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, State Counsel.

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

Unfortunately the order sought to be implemented through these contempt proceedings was passed in the Constitutional Petition, in which the prayer was that the petitioner be appointed as ‘Chowkidar’ in lieu of the plot gifted, handed over or otherwise given by the petitioner to the Education Department. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Government of Sindh & others v. Loung Khan Rajper & others (Civil Appeals Nos.19-K to 50-K of 2015) while relying on the earlier judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Hameedullah and 9 others vs. Headmistress, Government Girls School, Chokara, District Karak and 5 others (1997 SCMR 855) has already held that the donor of plot has no vested right to claim the post and, therefore, all the orders before the Supreme Court of identical nature have been set aside. The contempt proceedings are in the nature of execution of the orders dated 17.10.2012 in this Constitutional Petition. The perusal of the order dated 17.10.2012 shows that it was only to the effect that the competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner within 60 days time from today (17.10.2012). The case of petitioner was based on para 5 of the petition, which reads as follows:

“5. That it is right of Petitioner to be appointed as Chowkidar in the school as against the donation of his piece of plot.”

Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already declared that the petitioner has no vested right on the ground of donation of piece of plot, the non-compliance of the order and by not issuing the order of appointment the respondents/contemnors are not guilty of disobeying the order of this Court.

The learned Counsel says that there is no observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment to implement that order with retrospective effect. In our view, this is misconceived since the policy under which the petitioner claims appointment has already been declared as null and void.

In view of the above, these contempt proceedings are dropped.

Sd/- JUDGE