ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
C.P.No.D-115 of 2017
|
Date of hearing |
Order with signature of Judge |
Present:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
· For orders on office objection “A”
· For orders on M.A.No.586/2017 (E/A)
· For hearing of main case.
23.09.2020.
Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, A.A.G for the State
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
O R D E R
IRSHAD ALI SHAH-J; The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that in year 2012, the petitioner applied for his appointment as constable in Police Department Larkana. As per him, he qualified the Physical Examination, Written Test and Interview and then his name was placed at Serial No.151 of the Merit List yet was not appointed and the person(s) having less mark than him were appointed. It was in these circumstances, the petitioner has brought the instant constitutional petition before this court for direction to respondents to appoint him, as police constable in Sindh Police at District Larkana.
2. The S.S.P, Larkana and D.I.G Larkana, in their comments have stated that only 150 posts were available and the candidates at Serial No.01 to 150 were appointed, the petitioner could not be appointed for non-availability of vacancy and appointment of Irfan Ali as Tracker constable was fresh/separate and the petitioner is over-age by one year. By stating so, they have sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the person(s) having less marks have been appointed while the petitioner has been ignored without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for issuance of direction against the respondents to appoint the petitioner as police constable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon order dated 01.10.2015, passed by this Court in C.P.No.D-170 of 2014 Re. Ghulam Mustafa Vs. S.S.P, Larkana and others.
4. It is contended by learned A.A.G for the State that only 150 candidates were appointed and name of the petitioner was not finding place within 150 candidates, so appointed, therefore, he could not be appointed ignoring the Merit List and beyond the available/vacant posts. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition, which according to him is also hit by laches. In support of his contention, he has relied upon order dated 23.07.2019, passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Civil Petition No.15-K of 2019.
5. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, 150 candidates have been appointed as police constables on the basis of Merit List against the available/ vacant posts, such an action apparently was accepted by the petitioner without challenge at least for five years, it is hit by laches. Needless to say that when a right was required to be asserted, it had to be done vigilantly and no indulgence could be extended to an indolent and negligent litigant. In service matters, vigilance and promptitude is a must. The reference in that context could be made to case of Syed Rizwan Ahmed Vs. Secretary CADD, Islamabad (2018 SCMR-997). The controversy that the persons, having less marks than the petitioner have been appointed as constables in Sindh Police, even otherwise, being factual could not be resolved by this Court in exercise of its constitutional petition.
7. The order, passed by this Court which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the petitioner came before the Court timely and his petition was not hit by laches.
8. Prima facie, the petitioner has failed to make out a clear case of infringement of his right or establishing malafide on the part of official respondents in following the recruitment procedure which is sufficient for dismissal of his constitutional petition. It is dismissed accordingly alongwith listed application.
JUDGE
JUDGE .