2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAHIB KHAN, J.

Through the instant revision petition, petitioners have assailed the impugned judgment/order dated 23-6-2010, in C.A No.42 of 2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby he accepted the appeal preferred by respondents/ defendants and set aside the order passed by Civil Judge 1st Class Gilgit.

2. The briefly narrated background of the case is that the respondents through an advertisement invited applications from the eligible candidates for appointment as school teachers. Petitioners along with many others applied. The written test held as per schedule at various centers throughout the region. However before declaration of results on the complaints by various quarters, authorities/respondents vide impugned advertisement cancelled the previously held test and asked for second test. Petitioners feeling aggrieved challenged the second advertisement through a civil suit in Civil Court, seeking the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction. They also with the plaint filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. praying for temporary injunction which was allowed by the trial Judge. On 1st appeal before the Additional District Judge, he set aside the order dated 10-6-2010 passed by the Civil Judge vide his impugned order dated 23-6-2010. Hence this revision petition before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents without any cause and reason have cancelled the previously held test, just to favour their favorites. They thereby have caused serious injury to the rights of the petitioners, who had qualified the requisite tests, any sort of illegality if was committed by any of the staff member/members was on the part of respondents, and the violators were accountable instead of recalling the test again and again. The Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the rep. of the Education Department opposed the contentions with the submissions that the allegations on the transparency of test were probed through a detail inquiry and the inquiry committee had recommended for fresh tests, hence re-tests were scheduled and advertised accordingly just to ensure the fair and transparent appointments. They further submitted that the petitioners were never held successful or they never have been deprived from the newly-scheduled test, as such they got no cause of action against the respondents.

4. As the matter in hand pertains to fundamental rights guaranteed under (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009, therefore, it would be proper to reproduce the relevant provisions introduced in the said Order, 2009 to emphasis the need and its importance for qualitative assessment of the merit and providing merit based opportunity to each of the citizens of Gilgit-Baltistan. Article 17;

Equality of citizens.

All citizens are equal before law and are entitled for equal protection of Law. Article 19:

Safeguard against discrimination in services.

No citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of areas comprising Gilgit Baltistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground only of race , religion, caste or sex, provided that in the interest of the said service, specified posts or services may be reserved for members of either sex.

5. Equal job opportunity is a guaranteed right of every citizen as envisaged under Gilgit Baltistan (Self-Governance and Empowerment) Order, 2009 and also under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the purpose of providing such opportunity its wide Publication through print and electronic media is the basic need. Like wise the assessment of merit through transparent, fair, independent and impartial method is the only source to meet this constitutional need. On the other hand the sole reason for decreasing standard of merit in each and every organ of the State, specially in educational institution is the result of nepotism and favoritism during the selection process. It is time to be attentive, and curtail this tendency by those who are responsible to determine the merits and provide merit based opportunity to each and every citizen. Certainly it is very difficult but not impossible, if one should held himself answerable to his God and conscious, instead of feeling fear from the social evils.

6. Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan demand elimination of exploitation in all forms and recognize the right of every citizen but subject to his merit to ensure the share of every citizen in progress of the nation. To provide equal opportunity to meet these constitutional requirements and to protect the guaranteed rights of individual is the initial duty of all of States functionaries, who have to perform such duties within the ambit of the Constitution to score the goal targeted in the Constitution. The developing concept of the society that Judiciary alone is responsible to ensure the justice from top to bottom is incorrect but the fact is that as has been stated supra.

7. The inquiry report reveals that the tests were not fair, according to the report some incharges of the centers had committed serious illegalities and favour their favorites, but respondents hardly are able to announce fresh test, but no disciplinary action seems to be initiated on its way against violators to take them into the task for their deeds. This tendency and attitude specially by a court of law is not negligible. The departments always in like situation either ignore or opt to handle it by conducting fresh test, such decisions ultimately penalize the jobless and poor persons who are called repeatedly from the far-flung areas and most of them travel with borrowed money, which causes serious financial hardships to the poor candidates and injustice to the eligible candidates. In this case just to determine the merit in free and fair manner. I found no option except that decided by respondents i.e. "holding of re-test" in free, fair and transparent manner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not put forward any proof regarding their claim for qualifying the test by the petitioners and moreover, the petitioners have never been prevented from appearance in the proposed tests. Therefore the petitioners have got no cause of action against respondents likewise the relief claimed in the suit cannot be allowed in this matter, therefore, the suit being devoid of law is dismissed with cost.

9. I have already dismissed the Revision Petition vide order sheet dated 24-7-2010 and these are the reasons for the same order. Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to the costs. H.B.T./65/GLT. etition dismissed.