IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA.

C.P No. D-736 of 2012

 

Present :

Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar,  

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

 

Petitioners                       Sanam Parveen and another,

                                        Through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for the petitioners.

Respondents                   P.O Sindh & others.

                                        Through Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional

Advocate General.

 

Date of hearing               04-08-2020

Date of decision              04-08-2020

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

O R D E R

Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, J.         Through this petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs:-

a)       To issue the direction to the respondents to issue joining/posting orders to the petitioners, immediately in their respective post.

b)       To declare that any action of refusing to accept the appointment is illegal, nul and void.

c)       To declare that the petitioners are entitled for the salary/payment as per order passed by this Court in C.P No. 1051/2007.

d)       Further relief as may be necessary in the circumstances of the petition and this Court considers appropriate and proper.

v)       Award costs of the petition.  

 

2.                                  Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to advertisement, the petitioners applied for the post of school teachers and thereafter appeared in test and were successful; that thereafter offer letters were issued and even medical examination was conducted; that in similar circumstances, though by consent, this court has allowed the petitions of various other similarly placed persons, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the same relief.

3.                                  Learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh submits that this petition is hit by latches as it appears that some advertisement regarding appointment in the Education Department was issued on 30.01.2004 and it is the case of the petitioners that they were successfully qualified on merit; but appointment letters were not issued. Learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh has referred to order dated 01.04.2015, passed in Civil Petition No. 186-K of 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which according to him is on identical facts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to observe that the petitions were hit by latches inasmuch as the advertisement in that case was of the year 2007, whereas petitions were filed in the year 2012. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan are as under:-

2.       We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, whose only argument was that some of those who were selected along with the petitioners were subsequently appointed and thus the petitioners be treated alike. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185).

3.       Responding to the above contentions, the learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh submitted that the appointments of some of the successful candidates were made on the orders of the Court and not by the Education Department on its own.

4.       The record shows that certain appointments were undoubtedly made but on the orders of the Court. It further transpires that such orders were made with consent of the counsel representing the Department. However, the learned counsel was unable to refer to any judgment of the High Court which had allowed the petition of the successful candidates on merits. The consent order obviously cannot be cited as precedent, more so when the scrapping of the examination was maintained by the High Court. Additionally, the constitutional petition suffered from latches. By now, almost 8 years have passed by when the selection was made and it is too late in the day to direct the appointment of the petitioners. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave declined.

4.                                  From perusal of the record in this matter, we are of the view that the above order and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan equally apply in this matter as the petitioners have approached this court in the year 2012 in respect of appointment advertisement of the year 2004. Insofar as reliance on some earlier orders of this court are concerned, the same have been passed by consent and therefore, are not of any help to the petitioners’ case.

5.                                  Accordingly the petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed.

                                                                                     Judge

Judge

Abdul Salam/P.A