ORDER SHEET

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

C.P.No.D-179 of 2012

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

· For orders on M.A.No.7810/2016.

· For hearing of M.A.No.2910/2015

· For hearing of M.A.No.6136/2015.

· For hearing of M.A.No.6088/2014.

· For hearing of main case.

Date of hearing: 17.10.2018.

Date of Order: 14.11.2018.

Mr. Ashfaq Hussain Abro, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate for private respondents.

Mr.Ameer Ahmed Narejo, State Counsel

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The petitioners by way of instant constitutional petition have sought for the following relief;

a) Declare the act of respondent No.1 for not issuing/announce the final result of viva voce of the petitioners, and issued appointment orders in favour of illegal and not eligible persons to be illegal, unlawful, based on malafides, without lawful justification and discriminatory, as the petitioners had qualified in all the requisite tests.

b) Direct the respondents, particularly the respondent No.1 to issue final result of viva-voce, thereafter, if petitioners found successful then appointment orders in the name of petitioners be issued, without any further loss of time.

c) Further be pleased to direct the respondents to bring all the relevant record regarding the appointments.

d) Award costs of the petition

e) Grant any other equitable and adequate relief in view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts, in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition, are that Anti Corruption Establishment Karachi, Sindh, invited applications for appointment from suitable candidates for the post of Constables, Technicians, Assistant Sub Inspector and Junior Clerks. The petitioners, carrying a feeling that they are fulfilling the requisite criteria, applied for the post of Constables to be appointed against the posts reserved for Larkana District. The petitioners were called for physical and written test, which they qualified. Subsequently, they were called for Viva-Voce, they appeared therein but as per them the result whereof was withhold. Subsequently, as per the petitioners, the appointment orders were issued in favour of the private respondents, who as per them never appeared in physical or written test. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the instant constitutional petition for the relief, as is detailed above.

3. It was inter-alia submitted by the official respondents in their written objections that the petitioners qualified the written test but they could not qualify the interview, as such they could not be declared successful. Subsequently, a committee was constituted to verify the documents and submit recommendation for appointment; the petitioners were called upon to appear before the committee, such remedy they did not avail but sought for suspension of operation of the notice which was served upon them for the said purpose. The appointments according to them have been made on merits. By submitting so, they sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition.

4. It was inter-alia submitted by the private respondents in their written objections that they have been appointed after having been declared successful in physical, written test and Viva-Voce and after their appointment they have also undergone the requisite training at PTS Jam Nawaz Ali and Allied Course at PTS Razzak Abad. By submitting so, they also sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that no result was announced by the official respondents, the private respondents have never applied for their appointment for the post of Constables for Larkana District, yet they have been appointed other than the merits, by the official respondents under political influence or otherwise. By contending so, he sought for issuance of direction against the official respondents to declare the result and then to appoint the petitioners as Constables in Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sindh at Larkana District.

6. It is contended by learned State Counsel and learned counsel for the private respondents that the appointments of the constables have been made by Anti-Corruption Establishment Sindh, in very transparent manner, the petitioners having failed to qualify the Viva-Voce, subsequently they were provided a chance to appear before the committee for redressal of their grievance, which they failed to avail, they as such are having no right to seek their appointment as Constables by way of filing the instant constitutional petition. By contending so, they sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition.

7. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

8. The petitioners have claimed that persons, appointed by respondents, have never appeared in required written and physical test nor have qualified, hence their appointments is based on a managed list. Such claim of the petitioners, however, has categorically been denied by the official and private respondents. We would say that the legality and genuineness of a document (list) cannot be determined in constitutional jurisdiction because such declaration cannot be made without recording of evidence which is not permissible at law.

9. Without making any comments on such document (list) whereby persons, so appointed, are declared to have qualified for interview stage, It is not disputed by the petitioners that the result for the appointment of Constables in Anti Corruption Establishment Sindh now has been declared and in consequence whereof, the appointments are made. Those have also completed required training and their superiors have not alleged any lacking in such persons. Therefore, it would not be legally justified to declare appointments of such persons illegal merely on claims that Viva-Voce was not conducted properly or result whereof was not pronounced. Prima facie, the petitioners have failed in making out a clear case of infringement of their rights or establishing malafide on the part of official respondents in following the recruitment procedure which is sufficient for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition. It is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE