2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J.

Through the listed petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution, petitioner namely Farhan Khan prays for a declaration in terms that "the posts advertisement dated 26, Feb to 14 March of 2023 to have been made against the FOSPAH Employment Rules, 2014. To further declare the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 and 8 as illegal and void ab initio due to being made and/or filled against procedure laid down in FOSPAH Employment Rules, 2014. "

2. The facts, relevant and essential for adjudication are to the effect that on 01.04.2023, petitioner filed the listed petition contending therein that he was a former employee of Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection against Harassment at Workplace ("FOSPAH") and witnessed various illegalities and irregularities on the part of respondent No.7-former Ombudsperson; that the FOSPAH is a quasi-judicial forum, established under the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010 ("Act of 2010"); that respondent No.7-former Ombudsperson, published two separate advertisements, one for the post of Consultant, wherein she appointed respondent No.5 (Ch. Shafique) for allegedly protecting her irregularities practiced in her tenure (2018-2023), second advertisement dated 26th February to 14th March 2023, for filling of several posts before the new Ombudsman had to take the charge, despite the fact that most of these posts were promotion based which could not be filled through initial or direct recruitment; that the terms and conditions of service of employees of FOSPAH are governed by the Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014 ("Rules of 2014"), notified by the Federal Government on 09 September, 2014, Rule 8 whereof stipulates that all vacancies to be filled in by initial appointment shall be advertised in the newspapers in accordance with the laid down policies of the Federal Government; that as per the Rules of 2014 and the policy of the Federal Government contained in OM dated 07.08.2019, the Secretariat was bound to advertise each and every post intended to be filled by way of initial recruitment; that the post of Assistant Account Officer (BS-16) is meant for appointment through promotion i.e. 100% as per Clause-II of Table III, of the Rules of 2014, but in derogation to the rules, respondent No.4 (Hammad-ul-Hassan Siddiqui) was appointed directly through initial appointment; that appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 namely Ch. Shafique, Legal Consultant and Munib Siddiqui were also made in non-transparent manner, without advertising the vacancies before the appointment and that the appointment of respondent No. 8 namely Rehman Shahzad, Registrar BS-18 and his subsequent regularization was also made in contravention of rules.

3. The respondent No.1 (Ministry of Law and Justice) in its report maintained that the issue involved in the petition substantially relates to FOSPAH which is an autonomous quasi-judicial statutory body. Under Section 17 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, the Ombudsman is the Chief Executive and Principal Accounting Officer of his office, and has complete administrative and Financial autonomy. Subsection (3) of Section 17 of the Act empowers the Ombudsman to create new posts etc. Further Subsection of 7 of the Act 2010, stipulates that the Ombudsman may recruit such staff as required to achieve the purpose of the Act. The respondent No.1 has no role in the administrative matters of the FOSPAH, its impleadment is unwarranted and unnecessary and that the petition is defective for misjoinder of the necessary parties.

4. The contesting respondents in their joint para-wise comments objected upon the maintainability of the listed petition, it being hit by the doctrine of laches and res judicata, having no locus standi and filed with malafide intention. On merits, it was asserted that petitioner has concealed the material facts and filing of earlier two writ petitions i.e. W.P.No.228-2020 and W.P.No.2706-2022 which were dismissed and rendered infructuous; that petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands; that petitioner had never been employee of respondent- FOSPAH and was just a Legal Intern for the period April 2018 to January, 2019; that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Registrar BS-16 but failed to qualify and thereafter launched frivolous litigation in order to exert pressure to get undue benefit of appointment; that respondent No.5 has already been terminated from service with effect from 21.09.2023, therefore, petition to his extent has already become infructuous and that the petitioner never agitated any illegality during his stay in the organization as Intern.

5. In response to allegations levelled by the petitioner on the appointment of respondents Nos.4 to 6 and 8; it was asserted that in terms of Note of Table IV, (Conditions of Promotions) of the Rules of 2014, if no suitable person is available for promotion, the post reserved for promotion shall be filled in by initial appointment and failing that by transfer; that contract of respondent No.5 has already been terminated; that appointment of respondent No.6 was made in accordance with the rules and regulations which bestow authority to respondent No.3 to appoint persons for the smooth functioning of FOSPAH and that the respondent No.8 was appointed and regularized through proper channel after undergoing the process of advertisement, test and interview.

6. It is necessary to mention that on 11.11.2024, learned counsel for the respondent had objected upon the documents, relied upon by the petitioner, as the same were personal documents of the respondents and were allegedly obtained from their personal files in deceitful manner. On this, petitioner was directed to file affidavit disclosing the precise source from which the documents were obtained and the circumstances under which the petitioner came into the possession of said documents including the manner of their acquisition. The petitioner was also directed to specify in his affidavit that whether those documents were obtained with the knowledge and consent of the respondents confirming thereby that the acquisition was made in compliance with legal procedure and without infringing upon respondents' rights.

7. In response, petitioner tendered affidavit wherein it was testified that "an application was submitted with the department for provision of documents under the Right of Access to Information Act, pertaining to the recruitment process and their eligibility/qualification of Rehman Shahzad, Registrar, Munib Siddiqui, Staff Officer, Hammad ul Hassan Siddiqi, AD Accounts and Ch. Shafique, Advisor Admin. After the lapse of one and a half month, the reminder was submitted with the department of Federal Ombudsman Secretariat (FOSPAH), thereafter, the petitioner had received the requisite documents readily annexed with the titled petition."

8. The contesting respondents filed their respective counter affidavits wherein they refuted the claim of the petitioner to have filed any application for provision of the documents annexed with the petition or any reminder; that they verified the said fact from relevant register and concerned R&I Section and that the documents attached with the petition were obtained by using cam scanner and the department never provided official documents through cam scanner; no official letter is available with the documents showing that the said documents were obtained officially.

9. In addition to affidavit, petitioner through C.M.A. No.465-2025 had also placed on record a USB containing two video clips, interview of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in support of his stance to have validly obtained the questioned documents. In the said C.M.A., the petitioner had asserted that "after perusal of both videos/transcript and copies of applications it becomes evidently clear that the transmission of documents was purely within the legal bounds and that the said documents were given to the petitioner by the former Ombudsperson FOSPAH."

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents with their able assistance. The petitioner also placed on record written arguments whereas the learned counsel for the respondents, placed reliance upon case laws reported as PLD 2024 SC 235, 2023 SCMR 162, 2008 SCMR 960, 2008 SCMR 1200, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 140, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1394 and 2011 SCMR 374.

11. It is well settled that a writ of quo warranto is not to be issued as a matter of course. It is in the discretion of the court to refuse or grant it according to the facts and circumstances of the case. The foremost obligation of the court while hearing a quo warranto petition is to inquire into the conduct and motive of the relater and may, in its discretion, decline to issue a writ where it would be vexatious to allow the same. The court must be satisfied that the petitioner is a bona fide and not motivated by any malice against the person whose appointment is under challenge. A writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice and mala fide. The court has to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object. It is, therefore, to be determined at the first instance as to whether the conduct of the petitioner, in the present case, has gone to such an extent that this court should, in view of that conduct, consider him to be worthy of being entrusted with a writ in the form of quo warranto.

12. It is an admitted fact that at no point in time, petitioner had been a regular employee of the respondent department, instead worked as Legal Intern from 02.04.2018 to 11.01.2019 as reveals through certificate issued by the Federal Ombudsman FOSPAH. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Registrar BS-16 in the year 2019, appeared for the interview but remained unsuccessful.

13. Record further reveals that petitioner had questioned his non-selection through W.P. No. 228-2020, filed on 23.01.2020, wherein besides praying for his appointment as Assistant Registrar BS-16, sought direction to cancel all recruitments made by the then Federal Ombudsman since February 2018. In addition, petitioner also sought removal of the then Federal Ombudsman. This move of the petitioner, on the face of it, reflects rancor against his non-selection as in one and the same petition, he prayed for his appointment and at the same time sought cancelation of other appointments made at the relevant time.

14. The most significant aspect, gleans out of record, is that in W.P.No.228-2020, petitioner had also arrayed Rehman Shahzad, Registrar and Muhammad Munib Ahmed, Staff Officer, as respondents Nos.12 and 13 respectively. The said writ petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 28.06.2021. The petitioner had never assailed the said order in appeal which thus had attained finality. Surprisingly, petitioner questioned the appointments of above-mentioned respondents again by arraying them as respondents 6 and 7 in the instant petition. After the dismissal of first writ petition, the second petition on the same subject against respondents 6 and 7 was barred being hit by principle of res judicata.

15. Bare perusal of memo of the instant petition shows that the petitioner had concealed the facts regarding his non-selection by the respondent department and filing of two successive petitions i.e. W.P.No.228-2020 and W.P.No.2706-2022. The latter petition whereby the petitioner had assailed the holding and occupation of the Office of Federal Ombudsman for FOSPAH by respondent No.7, was dismissed being infructuous vide order dated 22.03.2023 on account of appointment of the Federal Ombudsman FOSPAH.

16. The documents relied upon to question the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 and 8, available on file at pages 12 to 17, 19, 21, 24, 25 and 26, are photocopies and also bear the writing "scanned with cam scanner". This fact, if seen in conjunction with the conduct of the petitioner, highlighted above, right after his non selection, leaves no room to observe that the petitioner has come to the court with unclean hands and his action is tainted with mala fide.

17. The listed petition is the third one filed by the petitioner, the first one wherein he had arrayed some of the respondents of the instant petition as party was dismissed; second petition was disposed of. In both the earlier petitions, he had arrayed the then Federal Ombudsperson as respondent, questioned her appointment but surprisingly in his C.M.A. No.465-2025, he had asserted that the documents were given to him by the former Ombudsperson FOSPAH, whose appointment was earlier questioned by the petitioner. Not a single document was produced by the petitioner to substantiate his stance of having obtained the documents through legal means or from the former Ombudsperson. Even otherwise, the facts asserted through C.M.A. had never been mentioned in the memo of the petition.

18. To sum up, it can safely be held that the petitioner, after his non-selection as Registrar-BS-16 by the respondent department, filed successive petitions, concealed the facts regarding filing of earlier petitions and the dismissal of one of them, in the instant petition, also challenged the appointments of some of the respondents of the first writ petition again without realizing the fact that the order of dismissal of first writ petition had attained finality, and he had relied upon unauthentic documents, to question the appointments of respondents. The conduct demonstrated by the petitioner, on the face of it, holds him disentitled for the relief sought instead, deserves imposition of costs particularly to the extent of respondents 6 and 7 against whom petitioner had filed successive petitions.

19. In view of above, listed petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one hundred thousand) which the petitioner shall pay to respondents Nos. 6 and 7 in equal share within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. The learned counsel for the respondents shall submit certificate confirming payment of costs with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. In case, petitioner fails to pay the amount of costs, same shall be recovered as money decree with ten percent annual increase from the date of this judgment. MH/138/Isl. Petition dismissed.