IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

AT LARKANA

Present:

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

C.P D-172 of 2023               :           Hassan Raza and others vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-173 of 2023               :           Rashid Ali and others vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-175 of 2023               :           Kamran Ali Mangan vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-176 of 2023               :           Baba Suleman Magsi vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-178 of 2023               :           Nabeel Ahmed Awan and others vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-183 of 2023               :           Sanaullah Mugheri and others vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-199 of 2023               :           Fahad Ali Jatoi and others vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-224 of 2023               :           Zubair Ali Shahani and others vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-247 of 2023               :           Sajjad Ali Jagirani vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-309 of 2023               :           Kaleemullah and another vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-371 of 2023               :           Mst. Fazeela Pirzado vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

C.P D-396 of 2023               :           Lakhmeer Khan Magsi vs.

Superintendent, Central Jail, Larkana and others.

C.P D-483 of 2023               :           Nadeem Ali Gadehi vs.

Province of Sindh and others.

For the Petitioners               :           M/s. Habibullah G. Ghouri and Ghulam

Muhammad Barijo, Advocates

For official Respondents    :           Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional

Advocate General, Sindh a/w Shabir Ahmed Abbasi, D.S.P and Ahmed Nawaz Tunio, Assistant Superintendent, Central Prisons, Larkana.

Date of hearing                    :           14.05.2024

Date of Order                        :           14.05.2024

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.  These petitions involve a common controversy, hence, were listed and heard conjointly and shall be determined vide this common order. Briefly stated, scores of petitioners have filed these petitions seeking appointment as police constables; predicated upon the averment that they were better qualified than those that had been successful.

            The respondents’ comments placed on record deny the petitioners’ averments and categorically state that the successful candidates in the publicly advertised recruitment process have been processed in accordance with the law and the petitioners certainly did not succeed. Interestingly, not a single successful candidate, rights whereof are sought to be annulled herein, has been arrayed as a respondent herein.

No infirmity, in the recruitment process impugned, was even endeavored to be demonstrated before the Court and the entire pleadings pivoted upon the averment that the petitioners ought to have been considered instead. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the plea raised is factual in nature and the writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum in such regard[1]. There was also no endeavor to demonstrate the existence of any vested right in respect of the petitioners to maintain this petition.

The petitions also contain scurrilous allegations against public office holders not even impleaded herein, however, the same could not be corroborated from the record annexed or the arguments advanced. The plea for a fishing exercise in such circumstances, to be ordered by the Court, cannot be sustained; more so since the counsel remained at a loss to cite any law to sanction the same.

Be that as it may, we are assisted with a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court at Sukkur, dated 31.08.2023 in CP D 404 of 2023 and connected matters, is precise pari materia facts and circumstances. Speaking for the Court, Arbab Ali Hakro J has duly appraised facts on the anvil of the law and dismissed the petitions. The aforementioned judgment is binding upon this Court per the Multiline[2] principles.

In view of the preponderance of binding authority, cited supra, it is our considered view that no case has been set forth before us to merit the invocation of the discretionary[3] writ jurisdiction of this Court in such regard; therefore, these petitions are hereby dismissed, along with pending applications. The office is instructed to place a copy hereof in each connected petition.

Judge

Judge

---

[1] 2016 CLC 1; 2015 PLC 45; 2015 CLD 257; 2011 SCMR 1990; 2001 SCMR 574; PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415.

[2]Multiline Associates vs. ArdeshirCowasjeereported as PLD 1995 Supreme Court 423.

[3]Per IjazUl Ahsan J. in Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. PBC & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 425; Muhammad Fiaz Khan vs. Ajmer Khan & Another reported as 2010 SCMR 105.