ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI.

 

C.P. No.D-840 of 2012

 

Date            Order with signature of Judge

 

 

  1. For orders on Misc. 9501/12.
  2. For orders on Misc. 4555/12.
  3. For Katcha Peshi.
  4. For orders on Misc. 4553/12

 

Dated: 03.05.2012

 

Mr. M. Habib Jalib for the petitioners.

 

-.-.-

 

Through the instant petition the petitioners have sought the following relief:-

 

i)                                           declare that the appointments/selections of the respondents No.9 to 15 are illegal, void and without any lawful authority as approved by respondent No.1 being sent by the Department Selection Committee;

 

ii)                                        declare that the appointments/selections made by the Departmental Selection Committee is not in accordance with law and justice as well as purely based on malafide;

 

iii)                                      declare that the appointments/selections are meritless and not as per requirement of Rules and Regulations as required.

 

iv)                                      cancel all the appointments/selections being illegal having no legal value as well as not in accordance with the Rules and Regulations.

 

v)                                         cirect the respondents to take the petitioners in service on Regularly Basis and their Contract may be regularized, being qualified, experience etc. in the relevant post;

 

vi)                                      restrain the respondents No.1 to 8 their subordinates not to terminate/remove the petitioners’ contract till the final disposal of the petition;

 

vii)                                    direct the respondents No.1 to 8 not to take the duties from respondents No.9 to 15.

 

Despite opportunity the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to justify his seeking relief as above. Neither has he been able to point out us as to in what manner and how the impugned appointments/selections are illegal, void and without lawful authority nor he has been able to point out that the appointees either do not meet relevant criteria or their appointments is violative of law, rules and/or policy. So far as question of regularization of the petitioners is concerned, we would direct the respondents to consider the regularization of the petitioners if they otherwise meet the criteria for such appointments/regularization. 

 

The petition along with pending applications is disposed of in the foregoing terms.

 

Judge

 

 

 

                                                                             Judge