ORDER SHEET

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Present.

Mr. Justice Faisal Arab.<= /span>

Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar.=

C.P No.D-127 of 2013

22.10.2013= .

Mr. Muhammad Sachal R.Awan, advocate f= or the petitioner.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro Additional Advocate General Sindh.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; ………..

&= nbsp; Through instant petition, petitioner has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and prays as under: -

a. = To declare that the respondent No.1 correctly approved the case of petitioner = for appointment against son-quota after going through entire codal formalities = in case of death of father of the petitioner.

b.&n= bsp; = ; To direct the respondent No.4 to issue appointment letter as per approval of respondent No.1.

2. = Succinctly, but relevant facts as stated in the instant petition are that father of the petitioner namely Allah Bachayo Chandio was working in police department as Assistant Sub-Inspector and during his service, he died due to natural deat= h; petitioner applied for the post of police constable on the basis of deceased quota; such application was processed by the department according to the po= licy as laid down in the Standing Order No.211/2007 issued by respondent No.1. A= fter completion of whole process, his case was recommended by the respondent No.= 4. Petitioner was declined for such appointment on the ground that petitioner lacks qualification of such post.

3. = Respondent No.4 filed comments contending therein that “it is fact that on recommendations of office of the respondent No.4 necessary approval was issued for appointment of the petitioner as Constable against = Son Quota according to Standing Order No.211/2007 by worthy IGP Sind Karachi vide his l= etter No.19114-16/T-7/E-IV/S&S/2011 dated 10-10-2011. To fulfillment of codal formalities the petitioner was verified medically and his character/anteced= ents was also verified from concerned Police Station.” It is further contended that petitioner was found over age by one year, nine months and f= ive days thus, according to Standing Order age limit was 18 to 28 years and also petitioner was having deficiency of 1 ½ inch in chest. Such relaxati= on was also recommended but same was declined by respondent No.1.

4. = Learned counsel for respective parties reiterated the same contentions according to their pleas.

5. = After careful consideration of contentions agitated by respective parties and meticulous examination of available record it is sufficed to say that it is= matter of record that petitioner’s case was considered by department and respondent No.4 completed all the formalities according to the Standing Ord= er thereby recommended the case of the petitioner for final approval. It is further surfaced that petitioner was declined to be appointed on the ground that he was over age about one year, nine months and five days and having deficiency of 1 ½ inch in chest.

6. = We have examined the Recruitment Policy against son quota as laid down in Stan= ding Order No.211/2007, wherein in column of procedure of recruitment item No.3 = contends that ”IGP Sindh may grant con= donation in qualification and physical standard to the son/daughter who have been recommended for appointment by the Recruitment Committee.” It is worth to add here that petitioner’s candidature cannot be equated with the candidature of the persons, who apply directly on merits. Petitioner has claimed appointment according to policy laid down by respondent No.1 in aforesaid Standing Order which is for the persons who have served to the department and such policy itself provides the discretion which can be exercised in favour of any applicant falling in such category thus, inserti= on of such discretion in Standing Order has significant value and cannot be overlooked in slip short manner. It is also noteworthy to mention here that Standing Order provides the different procedure for appointment on the basi= s of son quota and refusal to the petitioner by the respondents is not substanti= ated by any valid reason. Since the petitioner has otherwise qualified all formalities and was considered for recruitment as police constable, therefo= re, there is no justification to deny him from his legally created right under a policy. Consequently, instant petition is allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner within one month and shall submit compliance report through Additional Registrar of this Court.<= o:p>

JUDGE

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; JUDGE

A.C