2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

Through this Intra Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (the "Ordinance"), the Appellant has challenged the validity of impugned order dated 09.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.16623 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge (the "Impugned Order") whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant inter alia contended that the impugned order is against the law and facts; that the impugned order is the result of mis-reading and non-reading of record; that the impugned order is against the public policy; that the Appellate was not treated in accordance with law; that the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber has also failed to appreciate law on the point in its true perspective as such the same is liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned Law Officer vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and prayed for dismissal of the Appeal on the ground that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law as such does not call for any interference by this Division Bench.

4. We have heard the arguments and have perused the record.

5. The sole ground agitated by the Appellate before us is that he participated in the written test for the recruitment of Tehsildars which was later on withdrawn hence his fundamental rights were infringed. While the stance of the Respondents is that recruitment process was stopped by the Respondent No.1 on the instructions received by the Respondent No.2 in terms of Chief Minster's order dated 13.01.2013 as there was no need to recruit further Tehsildars due to a project for computerization of land record. We noted that the recruitment process for the appointments of Tehsildars were initiated in year 20121 which was later on stopped due to computerization of land record. It is observed that the Respondent No.1-PPSC is only a facilitator in the process of recruitment which appoints the persons as per requirements/requisition of the concerned department and even it can stop the same on the request of the concerned. In the case in hand, the recruitment process was stopped at an early stage of written test therefore, it cannot be said that the process was illegally stopped by the Respondent No.1. Moreover, it is the sole prerogative of the Government to create or abolish seats as per the exigency of the work/service. As the process of recruitment and its cancellation was done due to exigency of work which is purely a policy matter and Courts could not interfere into the policy matters of the Government, particularly when it is in the public interest. It is not in the domain of the Courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular admission/merit policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of the Constitution. It was for the Government to decide on how and in what manner the reservations should be made and such a policy decision normally would not be open to challenge subject to its passing the test of reasonableness. Reliance is placed on "Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (2012 SCMR 455) and "Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, Islamabad through Authorized Representative v. Maleeha Syed and 4 others" (PLD 2020 Lahore 16). The leaned Single Judge has rightly held that "no illegality is made out because the Petitioners only participated in the written test and do not know whether they shall even qualify the test. As such there is no legal right which has been denied".

6. We fully agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge who dismissed the petition and see no illegality or perversity in the impugned order which has been passed in line with the dictates of law and does not warrant any interference by this Division Bench.

7. Resultantly, the instant Appeal, being bereft of any force, is accordingly dismissed. SA/S-67/L Appeal dismissed.