1995 PLP 1393 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Factual controversy‑‑ Petitioner had claimed that he, despite possessing necessary qualifications to be selected for the post had been ignored and instead favourite candidate had been selected‑‑‑Petitioner gave written test alongwith other candidates and obtained 365th position among successful candidates while only 61 candidates were selected‑‑‑Petitioner's position being much lower amongst successful candidates, he had no vested right to be considered for appointment‑‑‑High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, could not enter into such factual controversies and determine the same‑‑‑Constitutional petition being without merit, was dismissed. Mahfooz Yar Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq for Respondents Nos. 2 and

3. MAMOON KAZI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a candidate for a post of electrical supervisor, which had earlier been advertised through newspapers. The contention of the petitioner is that although he possessed necessary qualifications for the said post but respondent No. 3 appointed his favourites and the petitioner was thus ignored. According to the comments filed on behalf A of respondent No. 3, the petitioner gave a written test and secured 127 marks out of 250 and the position obtained by him among successful candidates was 365th. As only 61 candidates were selected the rest including the petitioner were rejected. Aggrieved by such action the petitioner approached Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) but without any success. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal to the President of Pakistan in respect of the order passed by the Ombudsman, which is said to be still pending disposal and hence the present petition. Apart from the fact that, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us whether Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited or Principal of Training College thereof (respondent No‑3) are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and whether any of the said respondents can be regarded as a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province. However, no satisfactory answer to our query in this regard has been provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise, we find that the petitioner has no case on merits. Since as pointed out in the para-wise comments, only 61 candidates were taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 the petitioner's position being much lower among the successful candidates. The petitioner possessed no vested right to be considered for appointment under such circumstances. Although such statement made on behalf of the said respondents in the para-wise comments has been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but neither it is possible for us to enter into factual controversies and determine the same nor any such evidence has been placed before us upon which any definite finding can be given. In our view, the petition is completely without merit. In the result, the petition is dismissed in limine together with the Miscellaneous Application which has become infructuous in view of this order. H.B.T./A.1550/K Petition dismissed.