2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner Mst. Razia Bao daughter of Muhammad Younus resident of Astana Skardu Tehsil and District Skardu has filed the instant writ petition before this Court with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that writ may very kindly be accepted declaring that the impugned Notification No. SEC-LG-2(38)/2016-17 published on Daily K-2 dated 14.12.2018 is illegal, unconstitutional, unwarranted, unprecedented, void, without jurisdiction, against the principle of natural justice and dictum of the superior Courts of the country, good governance, moral values and ineffective upon the rights of th etitioner to the extent of the post at serial No. 071 f advertisement (Lady Instructor). It is further prayed that in the light of above mentioned facts, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue direction to the respondents the service of the petitioner may kindly be regularized/adjusted at the post of Lady Instructor BPS-08. Tile also prayed that till the final disposal of the instant writ petition, the operation of the impugned notification may very amiable be suspended to the extent of the post serial No. 07 (Lady Instructor). OR Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also graciously be granted to the petitioner. This prayer is made in the interest of justice."

2. The above writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 25-02-2019 and was adjourned for 18-03-2019. On 18-03-2019, Deputy Secretary LG & RD appeared and was directed to file parawise comments and the case was posted to 08-04-2019 for filing of comments. The comments were filed on 13-05-2019 and the case came today for hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is serving in LG & RD since 20-04-1995 at vocational schools Skardu and with the passage of time she attended many relevant courses related to her job description and always tried to deliver best in the interest of institution but her services have not yet been regularized and now the respondents have advertized two posts of Lady Instructor (BPS-08) in Daily K-2 dated 14-12-2018, which is against the dictum of fairness and the petitioner who is serving the institution since 1995 will be deprived. The learned counsel lastly prayed that the petitioner being qualified in all respect be appointed and regularized in (BPS-08) as a Lady Instructor.

4. The learned Advocate General opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as Lady Instructor (BPS-08) as she does not fulfill the criteria meant for the requisite post. The learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that the department concerned in written comments have elaborately stated the reasons for non regularization of the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed on a project and still her services are hired against a project, hence the writ petition be dismissed in the given circumstances of the case.

5. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and also perused the entire record placed before us and made part of the instant writ petition.

6. It is not denied that the petitioner was employed as Lady Instructor in the year 1995 against a development project. The services of the petitioner have not been regularized for the reasons that the development projects have their rules/regulations to run their affairs and are funded according to the ground realties and on need to need basis. Though the petitioner is serving since 1995 but knowing very well that (he services have been hired against a development project anu there was no scope for regularization, she kept quiet for a period of 24 years. Now it is almost all a settled principle of law that if a relief was available but was not availed in time by the petitioner the courts will not come in aid of an indolent. Wisdom is drawn from the following law cases:- a. 2012 CLC 1729 (Lahore) "(c) Constitution of Pakistan

Art. 199

Constitutional Aggrieved person may invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution within "reasonable time" and "reasonable time" had been interpreted as 90 days. b. 2013 MLD 287 (Sindh) "(c) Constitution of Pakistan

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Laches or delay

Legal effect

Laches per se would not be a bar to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Question of delay in filing constitutional petition would be examined with reference to facts of each case

Where facts of case and dictates of justice demanded, laches of several years could be overlooked or laches of few months might be fatal

Delay would defeat equity

Equity would aid vigilant and not indolent

Superior court refuse to come to the aid of a party having not been diligent, vigilant and acted in a prudent manner. c. 2014 PLC (172_0(C.S)352 Peshawar High Court. "(b) Constitution of Pakistan

Art.199

Constitutional petition

Laches

claim has to be filed within reasonable time

Failure of the petitioner to timely agitate the issue was fatal to his case as law always enjoined aggrieved persons to avail the legal forum for the redressal of their grievances within the prescribed and reasonable time.

6. The case of lady instructors is different from the case of the petitioner as they were employed under different circumstances and against the clear vacant posts.

7. In view of above detail discussion, we see no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed accordingly. ZC/135/GB Petition dismissed.