ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.

 

Constt: Petition No.D-        1239   of 2011

 

DATE                         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

 

 

1-     For hearing of CMA.No.1313/2015

2-     For hearing of CMA.No.13414/2014

3-     For Katcha Peshi.

4-     For hearing of CMA.No.3666/2011

 

 

 

1st. September, 2015.

 

 

                        Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, Advocate for petitioner.

 

                        Mr. Ubedullah Malano, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

 

                        Mr.Shahryar Imdad Awan, Asstt: A.G.

 

 

 

                        Through instant petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

 

(a)  That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue direction to respondent No.1 to 5 to issue appointment/offer order of petitioner as P.S.T against the existing posts of P.S.T lying vacant in U.C Kotri Kabir, Taluka Mehrabpur, District Naushahro Feroze.

 

(b)  Respondent No.2 to 5 may be restrained from issuing appointment orders for the post of P.S.T in U.C Kotri Kabir, Taluka Mehrabpur, District Naushahro Feroze.

(c)  Any other relief may kindly be granted as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under circumstances of the case.

 

(d)  To award cost of the petition.

 

                        Notices were issued, pursuant to which comments have been filed on behalf of official respondents as well as respondent No.6 Pir Bux S/o Abdul Sattar Koondhar, wherein the allegations as contained in the instant petition have been denied.

 

                        Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that appointment of respondent No.6 as P.S.T at Union Council Kotri Kabir, District Naushahro Feroze in the year, 2011 was obtained in violation of requirements of law and eligibility criteria. Per learned Counsel respondent No.6 did not pass P.T.C examination and inspite of such fact he has been given 08 marks. Per learned Counsel if such 08 marks would be deducted from the total score of respondent No.6, his marks will be 123 instead of 131. Whereas, according to learned Counsel the petitioner has obtained 125 marks, hence it has been prayed that appointment of respondent No.6 may be declared as illegal and resultantly petitioner may be given appointment on such post.

                       

                        Conversely, learned Counsel representing respondent No.6 denies such allegations and submits that the documents furnished by petitioner showing the result of P.T.C as forged document, whereas, proper P.T.C certificate has been filed through statement duly attested, which reflects that respondent No.6 has been declared as successful in P.T.C examination results. Learned Counsel for respondent No.6 further submits that perusal of comments filed on behalf of official respondents, it has also been verified that respondent No.6 has been appointed on the basis of valid, legal documents and he has obtained 131 marks, whereas petitioner has admittedly obtained 125 marks.

 

                        Learned Asstt: A.G has also referred to the comments filed on behalf of official respondents and particularly referred to para-8 which reads as follows:-

 

“The respondent No.6 got 81 marks in written test, 20 Qualification marks and 30 domicile marks. He over all got 131 marks and petitioner got 125 marks which proves that the respondent No.06 (Pir Bux) was eligible for the appointment on merit basis. The all qualification certificates of Mr. Pir Bux were got verified from concerned board/University by the District Coordination Officer Naushahro Feroze and found genuine and correct.”

 

                        It has been stated by the learned Asstt: A.G that the instant petition is misconceived, whereas, the appointment of respondent No.6 is found to be in accordance with law, whereas,  the documents furnished by respondent No.6 are duly verified and found to be genuine.

 

                        We have heard the learned Counsel, perused the record and comments filed on behalf of official respondents. It may be observed that a controversial fact has been agitated by the petitioner through instant petition, whereby P.T.C certificate issued by the official respondents in favour of respondent No.6 has been alleged to be forged document. However, from perusal of comments filed on behalf of  official respondents such allegation has been seriously disputed and it has been categorically stated in the comments that P.T.C certificate issued by the competent authority to the respondent No.6 has been duly verified and it has been specifically denied that such certificate is forged one.

 

                        In view of hereinabove disputed facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to examine such controversial facts while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed along with listed applications as it contains disputed facts. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for further verification, if required in respect of the documents/testimonials of respondent No.6. Whereas, official respondents are directed to  examine the allegations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after providing opportunity of being heard to both  parties. It is further clarified that if documents of respondent No.6 are found to be forged and bogus in any manner, proper action may be taken in accordance with law. Whereas, the claim of  petitioner, if any, for the purpose of appointment as P.S.T Teacher consequent upon findings of the official respondents with regard to testimonials of respondent No.6, may also be considered in accordance with law.

 

JUDGE

JUDGE

 

A.R.BROHI