2004 PLP 354 (SCMR)

QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.

These Constitution petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are being disposed of by a common judgment on account of similarity of the questions of law and facts involved therein.

2. Briefly, the facts to be noted are that the petitioners Suleman Ali Haideri and Babar Gul were appointed as Deputy Superintendents of Police on ad hoc basis by virtue of Notification No. SO(H)1(iii)262/87 issued by the Government of Balochistan on 19-12-1988. The posts were withdrawn from the purview of Balochistan Public Service Commission vide Notification No.7-39/88-SO1(S&GAD) dated 29-12-1988 and through Notification SO(H)3(1)1/92/Reg/2017 dated 19-10-1993 the services of the petitioners were regularized from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment. One Sohail Ahmed Sheikh was also appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on regular basis on 21-3-1990 and in the seniority list issued on 19-10-1993 his name was placed below the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved he took the matter before the Balochistan Service Tribunal. The appeal filed by him was allowed on 25-7-1997 and the case was remanded to the concerned department for completion of the requisite formalities and issuance of the final seniority list. The said list was issued on 1-8-1997 wherein he was placed at Serial No.49 and the petitioners at Serial Nos.26 and 23 respectively. He again challenged the seniority list through an appeal filed before the Balochistan Service Tribunal which was accepted on 9-8-2001, he was declared senior to the petitioners and the seniority list was ordered to be corrected accordingly. The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal but Civil Petition No.2610 of 2001 filed by them was dismissed on 19-10-2001 and leave refused with the following observation-- "A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that in view of, the chequered history of the case and little delay the learned Balochistan Service Tribunal bas exercised his discretion judiciously which is neither arbitrary nor capricious and hardly calls for any interference. The learned Balochistan Service Tribunal has dilated upon all the controversial questions in a comprehensive manner after having scrutinized the entire record and relevant, service laws. There i% hardly any ambiguity or illegality with the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court and no exception can be taken to the conclusion, which in our considered view, has been drawn by the learned Balochistan Service Tribunal fairly ill accordance with law and settled norms of justice. It is worth-mentioning here at this juncture that leave to appeal to this Court is competent where the case involves a substantial question of law and public importance and in absence whereof leave to appeal may not be granted. In this regard reference can be made to the cases reported in 1986 SCMR 1; 1982. SCMR' 897; 1981 SCMR 715; PLD 1980 SC 22 : PLJ 1980 SC 106 NLR 1980 Services 51,; 1980 SCMR 7.22; 1980 SCMR 148; 1976 SCMR 268; 1976 SCMR 262; .1976 SCMR 311; 1990 SCMR 1446; 1990 SCMR 560; 1989 SCMR 330; 1989 SCMR 1677; 1989 SCMR 748; 1980 SCMR 976 and 1987 SCMR 1354. Before parting with this judgment we may point out that the petitioners should be thankful to their stars that their initial appointment as D.S.P. has not been challenged-otherwise they would have been in great trouble in view of grave illegalities committed by the Government functionaries in their appointment. " The review petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed oil 16-7-2002.

3. In view of limited scope of Article 184(3) of the Constitution the learned counsel for the petitioners was asked at the very outset to address arguments on the question of maintainability of these petitions. The learned counsel again and again adverted to the merits of the case and contended that the petitions were maintainable as a case for interference on merits was made out. We are afraid the contention is misconceived and the petitions are not maintainable for reasons that are not far to seek. Both the petitions implicate an individual seniority-related grievance and do not involve any question of public importance with reference to enforcement of any fundamental right conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution cannot be invoked for redressal of a grievance which affects only the rights of an individual and not the public at large. Besides, the petitions have purportedly been filed for enforcement of a fundamental right but in fact they seek reversal of the aforesaid judgment of this Court and tend to re-open a closed chapter. A judgment of this Court cannot be challenged through a Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The view gets support front the judgments reported as Dr. A. Basit, Advocate v. Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and others PLD 2001 SC 1028; Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 103 and Mst. Noor Jehan v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1997 SCMR

160. In the first case modification of a judgment of this Court passed in a criminal appeal was sought but the Constitution petition was dismissed with the observations that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution the findings recorded by this Court in aforesaid criminal appeals cannot be set aside/modified, nor any portion of it can be expunged or substituted. In the second case it was held that this Court cannot in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction interfere with an order passed by another Judge or another Bench of the Court. The following excerpt therefrom may be reproduced hereunder advantageously:-- "We tried to impress upon them that the above facts would not attract Article 184(3) of the Constitution if otherwise the aforesaid petitions are not sustainable in view of well-settled proposition of law, firstly, that a Bench of this Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over an order, or a judgment of another Bench of this Court and, secondly, Article 184(3) confers jurisdiction on this Court of the nature contained in Article 199 of the Constitution, clause (5) of which excludes inter alia the Supreme Court and the High Courts. In other words, no writ, I can be issued by a High Court or Supreme Court against itself or against each other or its Judges in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, subject to two exceptions, namely, (i) where a High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge acts as persona designata or as a Tribunal or (ii) where a quo warranto is prayed for and a case is made out." In the authority mentioned last it was observed that a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution cannot be initiated, the effect of which will be to re-open a matter which is already finally adjudicated upon under Article 185 of the Constitution. Resultantly, the petitions are dismissed. S.A.K./S-236/S Petitions Dismissed.