ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Constt: Petition.No.D-490 of 2020.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

Before:

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

 Mr. Justice Agha Faisal,

01. For orders on office objection “A”.

02. For hearing of M.A.No.2323/2021 (E/A).

03. For orders on maintainability of main case.

01.02.2022

                        Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, Advocate for the petitioner.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that the petitioner filed a petition (C.P.No.D-371/2015) for his appointment on deceased quota; it was dismissed by this Court for non prosecution vide order dated 29.01.2018; it was sought to be restored by the petitioner by making such application; it was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2020; subsequently, the petitioner filed the instant constitutional petition for the same relief.

                        On being asked, how the second petition on same cause of action is maintainable, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is maintainable for the reason that the earlier petition was not disposed of on merits. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Wasi Ahmed Rizvi Vs. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1972 Karachi-589). 

                        We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The restoration of earlier petition was denied by this Court by making clear observation that father of the petitioner has died much before introduction of the policy for appointment of the family members of deceased employee. Impliedly, it was decision on merits. If it is believed that the earlier decision of this Court was not on merits, then such order was sought to have been reviewed, therefore, the second petition on same cause of action could not be maintained being incompetent.

                        In case of Wasi Ahmed Rizvi (supra), the second petition was maintained on fresh cause of action. The instant petition is not on fresh cause of action.

                        In view of facts and reasons, discussed above, the instant constitutional petition fails and is dismissed in limine together with listed application.   

                                                                                                       JUDGE

                                                                                 JUDGE       .