ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Constt. Petition No.D-375 of 2012
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
For
katcha peshi
29-11-2017
Mr. Hadi BuxBhatt, Advocate for
the petitioners
Mr.
Noor Hassan Malik, Assistant Attorney General
------------
Through
present petition, all the three petitioners have complained that the
respondents have not issued appointment orders for the posts of Primary School
Teachers (PST) and Junior School Teachers (JST) to petitioners, despite their
passing of written as well as oral examinations.
On
notice, respondents have filed their parawise comments and have disputed the
claim of the petitioners.
The
learned counsel for the petitioners today argued that initially the petitioners
were only issued offer letters for appointment, available from pages 15 to 19
(of the Court’s file), whereby petitioners were offered jobs in BPS-7/9 and
9/14, on contract basis. Subsequently the respondent No.2 issued show cause notices dated 01.8.2008 to
petitioners, on the purported ground that the above mentioned offer letters
were issued to the petitioners in violation of codal formalities. It has been
argued that the petitioners were discriminated against and hence seek issuance a
writ of mandamus against the official respondents.
The learned
AAG while refuting contentions of petitioners, has referred to his parawise
comments in support of his defence that the petitioners since did not secure
the minimum eligibility marks, that is, 60% in the test, thus they can not be
considered for the advertised posts of School Teachers.
Arguments
heard and record perused.
Admittedly
the petitioners have impugned the show cause notices dated 01.8.2008 by filing
instant petition on 16.2.2012, that is, after almost three and half years and
has not justified this delay with some plausible reasons. Secondly, no reply to
the above show cause notices have been appended by the petitioners to show that
they have contested the show cause notices on legal grounds. Thirdly, though in
rebuttal the petitioners’ counsel has disputed the arguments of learned AAG,
but did not bring any document in support of his claim that other persons who
have been appointed as teachers, had in fact secured less marks in
tests/examinations than the present petitioners. In this petition the foremost
factor is that of laches, that is, an inordinate delay of more than three years
in filing the petition against the grievance that was caused to petitioners way
back in August 2008. Except for some strong plausible reasons, this inordinate
delay in filing the instant petition can not be condoned and hence for these
reasons and in view of the above discussion present petition is consequently
dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
However
it is clarified that the above order will not debar the petitioners from future
employment opportunity.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA