2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J.

Petitioner, Abdul Khalique, had filed on 12-3-1996 Constitutional Petition No.D-383 of 1996 and prayed that he be appointed as an Assistant Controller Examinations in the University of Karachi. It was dismissed by judgment dated 5-9-1991 by a Division Bench of this Court with the following observations: "It may be pointed out that firstly, if the petitioner was merely selected by the Selection Board, no vested right was created in favour of the petitioner. Mere selection by the Selection Board does not give him a right to maintain the present petition when his selection was not approved by the appointing Authority and no letter of appointment was given to him. The petitioner has also not joined the said persons, who were given preference by the respondent and were appointed as Assistant Controller of Examinations. No judgment can be passed against a party without affording him an opportunity of hearing. " The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court through Civil Petition No. 136-K of 1998 and the above referred judgment of this Court was maintained with an observation that "mere selection by the Selection Board does not confer a right on the petitioner to be appointed against the said post when his selection was not approved by the appointing Authority". Besides above, the petition was also dismissed on the ground that no question of law of public importance was involved and the petition was time-barred by 95 days. The petitioner, now, has filed this petition viz. No.D-969 of 1999 and has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) "Declaring petitioner being recommended and selected candidate by the respondent for the post of Assistant Controller of Examinations in Basic Pay Sale 17 in Karachi University is entitled to be appointed by respondent No. 1 on the same post and readvertisement of the same posts in the daily Newspapers Jang and Dawn dated 12-8-1995 and 10-8-1995 by calling the applications from the candidates for the same post of Assistant Controller of Examinations (thereby ignoring the appointment of petitioner) is not proper and contrary to law and natural justice. (b) Further declaring that the petitioner is superior candidate in education and experience and with all merits in place of other appointed candidates i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are inferior in education, and experience and merits as such the appointment of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 as declared by the respondent No. 1 is illegal, unethical and against all norms of the justice and equity. (c) Directing the respondent No. 1 to make appointment of the petitioner in accordance with their own (Respondent No.3) recommendations and selection by issuing the appointment to the petitioner with all back benefits since the date of appointment of the candidate i.e. (Respondent Nos.4 and 5) at the same post of Assistant Controller of Examinations on Basic Pay Scale No. 17 in Karachi University of Karachi, prior to any effect on their further publication in daily Newspapers dated 12-8-1995 and 10-8-1995 daily Jang and Dawn and other publication in continuation thereof. (d) The costs of the petition be borne by Respondents. (e) Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case." The case of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, in brief, is that respondent No.3, the Selection Board University of Karachi, is only a recommending authority and not competent to issue appointment letter for the post of Grade-17. It is alleged that respondent No.5, Mr. Haroon Ahmed Siddiqui; is no more in service of the respondent No. 1 and he has already resigned: It is claimed that four candidates approved by the Syndicate were selected and they were already working in the Examination Department of the respondent No.

1. The respondents have claimed that the Selection Board had considered the appointment of the remaining candidates and had decided to re-advertise the remaining posts. About respondent No.4, it is said that his appointment was made after completion of all legal formalities and that Syndicate is competent to reject any candidate. It has been specifically denied that the petitioner is more qualified than the candidates appointed by the Syndicate. The respondents have categorically denied that they were interested in appointing the persons of their liking. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he being selected during the proceedings of earlier petition by respondent No.3, was more qualified than anybody else and should have been appointed instead of the posts being re-advertised. It is noted that Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that mere selection by the Selection Board did not confer a right upon the petitioner. It being so, he cannot be deemed to have been appointed in view of Supreme Court's order referred to earlier. Under the circumstances, no alternative was left with the respondents but to re-advertise the remaining posts. As regards, the prayer for declaration that he is more qualified than others, it is noted that it being a disputed fact cannot be resolved while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. On 16-11-1999, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had dismissed the petition in limine alongwith the listed application and these are reasons for the same. A-431/K Petition dismissed.