ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Constt. Petition No.D-2578 of 2010
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
For orders on CMA No.2714/2018
27-03-2018
Muhammad Usman Attorney of the petitioner
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Through present
petition, petitioner is seeking relief that necessary direction be issued to
official respondents to provide three jobs to the petitioner’s nominated family
members, because he has donated a plot of land to
official respondents for building and running
This
issue has already been decided in number of petitions by following the dicta
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.19-K to 50-K of
2015.
The
principle that has been laid down and is to be followed after a close
examination of these decisions and particularly that of the Honourable Supreme
Court is, that a public office even that of naib
qasid, a peon or a sanitary worker can not be a part
of consideration for any transaction and even if the same is so made, the same
policy or representation is illegal. Another reported judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court – 1997 SCMR 855, was followed in the above referred decision of
Honourable Apex Court. In one of the petitions; CPD-28 of 2011 earlier decided
by this Court, the petitioner has appended a letter from the respondent No.1 to
support his contention that in lieu of donation of plot, the donor is entitled
to recommend his family member for a government job. It was held, that the said
correspondence of 06.01.2009, in the light of the above judicial pronouncement
has no sanctity in the eyes of law and is void abinitio,
being against the public policy and is adversely affected by section 23 of the
Contract Act, 1872.
Before
parting with this order, it is necessary to observe that job opportunity to the
petitioner will not be refused simply on account of this decision, but his case
can be assessed and examined by the official respondents in accordance with
rules and recruitment policy as well as on merits, but obviously, without
considering the fact of plot donation. Similarly, as also already held in the earlier referred decision of
this Court pronounced by the learned Division Bench, that for a claim of
compensation or mesne profits, the petitioner can
avail the remedy provided under the law and if a jurisdiction of competent
forum / authority or Court is invoked, then the cases of such persons/
petitioners would be decided accordingly and strictly within the parameters of
law.
The
upshot of the above is that the above constitutional petition is devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA