2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The petitioners through this petition filed on 25.8.2012,have prayed for the following relief:- (a) Declare that the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief, benefit and treatment as has been given to the petitioners in C.P. No.D-470/2009 and D-34/2010 decided by this Honourable Court vide separate orders dated 08.12.2009 and 25.11.2010 respectively. (b) To direct the respondents to issue appointment/posting orders of the petitioners for the post of Police Constables (BPS-5) having already been declared successful and medically fit and eligible for the said post, from the date the remaining selected police constables were appointed with all back and consequential benefits. (c) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems just, fit and proper may kindly be awarded to the petitioners. (d) Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were qualified in the test and interview and they were also declared fit in the medical test, therefore, they were also required to be given the appointment letters for the post of constables (BPS-5) out of the quota of District Tharparkar, but they were denied their right. Learned A.A.G. submits that out of total 508 candidates only the appointment letters were issued to the candidates who were at serial No.1 to 164 as per the requirement in the district. The statement showing the merit list of candidates who qualified the physical tests/written/viva voice for the post of constables during 2008-2009 annexed by the petitioners at page No.77, of petition, shows that the names of the petitioners were placed at serial No.165 to 169 and they had also secured 51 marks like the candidates whose names are appearing at serial No.160 to

164. Learned A.A.G. further submits that the petitioners were not given the appointment letters as the quota for appointments was allotted to the District Tharparkar to the extent of 164 seats. In this connection he refers para-9 of the comments filed by respondent No.4/SSP Tharparkar, which shows that after the merit list was prepared by the Committee, only 164 seats were allotted to District Tharparkar, vide letter dated 30.01.2009, of I.G.P. Sindh Karachi and accordingly the appointment letters were issued to 164 candidates. In this connection learned counsel for petitioners refers various documents filed with this petition showing that in these documents the respondents had been showing 173 seats for which the appointments were to be made. Even the statement of result on merit, filed at page 77 of this petition, says2 the 'Note' on its bottom that according to the directions from high-ups the merit list of the candidates No.1 to 173 who obtained above of 50 marks, were recommended for appointment as constables in District Tharparkar. This list is signed by D.P.O. Tharparkar, S.P. Investigation Tharparkar and DSP Head Quarter Mithi being the Chairman and Members of District Committee. This being the final list could not be changed subsequently by the respondents as admittedly the petitioners obtained more than 50 marks like the candidates whose names are placed at serial No.160 to

164. Apart from above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed the reliance on the earlier order dated 08.12.2009 passed by this Court in C.P. No.D-470 of 2009 and order dated 25.11.2010 passed in C.P. No.D-34 of 2010 and submits that the case of petitioners is identical to that of those petitioners who were granted the similar relief which needs to be extended for the present petitioners also. The learned A.A.G. has also placed his reliance on the case of Secretary Finance and others v. Ghulam Safdar (2005 SCMR 534) and contends that mere selection in test and interview would not by itself vests the candidates with fundamental right for his appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand also places his reliance on the cases reported in 1996 SCMR 1186, 2003 SCMR 1030, 2005 SCMR 499, 2009 SCMR 339 and an unreported Judgment passed by Honourable Supreme Court on 18.5.2010 in the case of Province of Sindh and others v. Mumtaz Ali and another being C.P.L.A. No.31-K of 2010. We have gone through the case law as referred to by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the petitioners who obtained the same marks like others who were given the appointment letters, can not be denied their right and they are also entitled to be given the similar treatment and therefore, the objection of laches raised by learned A.A.G. will not come in their way. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to adjust the petitioners as against the vacant post of constables in District Tharparkar and in case no such vacancies are avail then they shall accommodate the petitioners as soon as such posts are available in the District. The petition is allowed in the above terms. ZC/K-36/Sindh Petition allowed.