IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR
C.P No.D-1569 of
2016
Petitioner: Miss.
Saima Phull, through Mr. J. K. Jarwar, Advocate.
Respondents No.1 to 4: Through Mr. Ali Raza
Balouch, Assistant Advocate General
Respondent No.5: Nemo.
Date of hearing: 29.09.2021
Date of decision: 29.09.2021
O
R D E R
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J:
Through this petition, the
Petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
a)
That this
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the Petitioner is
successful candidate and she is liable to be appointed as Primary School
Teacher at Government Girls Primary School Village Nathar Detha UC Phull Taluka
and District Naushahro Feroze for which the Petitioner is liable to be
appointed.
b)
This Hon’ble
Court may kindly be pleased to strictly and sternly direct the Respondents
(Education department Authorities) to recognize the genuine, superior and
preferential right of the Petitioner for the post of Primary School Teacher and
issue her the offer order according to merit list by treating her at par with
the other candidates who had similarly passed the written test alongwith
Petitioner and were appointed accordingly.”
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the very outset, submits
that after the advertisement of vacancies in education deportment, Petitioner
applied for the post of Primary School Teacher and in this regard written test
was conducted on 20.01.2013, petitioner appeared and obtained 77 marks, being
candidate from UC Phull. He next submits that the said appointments were made on
Union Council level, therefore, Petitioner was entitled for appointment as PST;
however Respondents have appointed Miss. Sanam Nawab against the policy as she
was belonging to UC-Koor Hassan not from UC Phull and in view of such circumstances,
he prayed that petition be allowed and the official Respondents may be directed
to appoint the Petitioner as PST.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate General has contended that as per
comments of Respondent No.4, there was no any female vacancy in UC-Phull nor
Respondent No.5, Miss Sanam Nawab, was appointed in UC-Phull; however she was
appointed in UC-Koor Hassan. Since there was no any female vacancy in UC-Phull,
therefore, petitioner is not entitled for appointment and the petition in hand
is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned Assistant Advocate General and have carefully examined the material
available on record with their able assistance.
5. The Respondent No.4 has submitted chart with regard to Need
Based Vacancies of PST, District Naushahro Feroze, approved by RSU Sindh.
According to said chart, there is no vacancy in UC-Phull for the female
candidate. Respondent No.4 has also filed the result of Respondent No.5 namely
Miss. Sanam Nawab Goraho, which reflects that she was a candidate from UC-Koor
Hassan and not from UC-Phull. As per comments of Respondent No.4, Miss Sanam
Nawab was appointed in UC-Koor Hassan but due to controversy of location of
GGPS Nathar Detha, which either in UC Koor Hassan or in UC Phull, the place of
posting in respect of Miss Sanam Goraho, has been changed from GGPS Nathar
Detha to GGPS Lal Bux Lund, located at UC-Koor Hassan.
6. We have considered the statement filed by Respondent No.5
wherein she has stated that she has applied from UC-Koor Hassan and was
appointed; however subsequently, she applied through proper channel for the
post of JEST and accordingly she was declared successful and was appointed for
the same post.
7. The plea taken
by the learned counsel that the petitioner qualified the written test for the
post of PST and is entitled for the appointment, in this regard, we are of the
view that mere passing written test could not, by itself, vest a candidate with
the fundamental right for enforcing a Constitutional jurisdiction of this
Court. Admittedly the authorities had not issued any offer of appointment to
the Petitioner and appointment to the post was subject to the availability of
vacancy as mentioned in the advertisement at condition 1(i). We have also noted
from the advertisement that the appointment of the candidates was on contract
basis for three years for the posts applied by the candidates and apparently
such period has already expired. It is a settled principle of law that for the
purpose of maintaining a Constitution Petition it is the duty and obligation of
the Petitioner to point out that the action of the Respondents was in violation
of their rules and regulations, which the learned counsel for Petitioner failed
to point out and thus failed to make out a case for appointment. Resultantly
instant petition is dismissed.
J U D G E
J
U D G E