ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 3858 of 2015

________________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

For katcha Peshi

07-09-2017.

Mr. Imtiaz Ali Soomro, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shehriyar Imdad Awan Assistant A.G along with Nadir Ali Panhwar Deputy Superintendent Central Prison Sukkur.

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

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was issued a letter dated 26.12.2012 for his appointment as Prison Constable (BS-05) in Sindh Prison Department in terms of which he was called upon to accept the offer within “14” days, failing which offer would have stood canceled.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that acting upon that offer,the petitioner had his physical fitness conducted and certificate to that effect was obtained on 02.01.2013. Counsel next contends that when the petitioner approached the respondents along with fitness certificate and the recruitment letter, they refused to issue appointment letter to the petitioner notwithstanding that his other colleagues were given such letters. This claim is denied by the respondent and it is stated that the petitioner never approached the department after having completed his medical test. The counsel for the petitioner repudiated this assertion vehemently and stated that petitioner was jobless and there was no possibility that he would not have approached the department for his appointment, in particular when he had already received recruitment letter as well as gone through the process of physical examination. The contentious point is whether the petitioner approached the respondents or not, which is a matter of evidence and cannot be adjudicated through the instant petition.

Be that as it may it is submitted that the respondents are still going through the process of induction of similar posts, for which advertisement has been given and candidates are being selected. However, when the petitioner approached the respondents to have his case considered afresh, he was denied on the ground that the instant constitutional petition was pending.

In the given circumstances, the instant constitutional petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach the department immediately and the department to consider his case on merit taking cognizance of the fact that he was given offer letter in the year 2012 and he has completed physical examination at that time. No prejudice should be caused to the petitioner for approaching this Court in this matter.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.