ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Constt. Petition No.D-246 of 2010
Constt. Petition No.D-1341 of 2010
Constt. Petition No.D-28 of 2011
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
Present:
Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, &
Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
For katcha peshi
Date of
hearing 15-11-2017
None
present for the petitioners
O R D E R
MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.
The titled constitutional petitions are decided by this common order.
2. Undisputedly
the crux of grievance of petitioners in all the above constitutional petitions
is that their sons and near relatives as recommended by them should be given
government jobs of naib qasid, peon and sanitary worker in schools, which have
been purportedly constructed on the plots / pieces of land donated (as claimed)
by these petitioners to respondents.
3. The above
controversy has already been resolved by earlier decisions of this Court (CP
No.D-14 of 2010 and CP No.4663 of 2015), by following the judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court handed down in Civil Appeal Nos.19-K to 50-K of 2015,
re: Government of Sindh and others Vs Loung Khan Rajper and others.
4. The
dictum which 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, the petitioner has appended a letter from the respondent No.1 as annexure
‘D’, to support his contention that in lieu of donation of plot, the donor is
entitled to recommend his family member for a government job. 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.
5. Before
parting with this order, it is necessary to observe that job opportunities to
the family members of petitioners will not be refused simply on account of this
decision, but their cases 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 these petitioners will be decided
accordingly and strictly within the parameters of law
6. The
upshot of the above is that all the above constitutional petitions are devoid
of merits and are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA