1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑The petitioner through this petition has prayed for the following reliefs:‑‑ "This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the arbitrary, illegal and prejudicial orders of respondent No. 1 on the recommendation of respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 annexed as annexure `E' passed on 28‑1‑1979 have been passed without lawful authority and have no legal force and arc liable to he quashed. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 he further directed to reinstate the petitioner till pending disposal of this petition or pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in circumstances of this case."

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was serving as a Railway Guard in Pakistan Western Railway from 2‑9‑1958 and served as such till February, 1976. The petitioner was selected as a Lecturer in English on ad hoc basis through a letter dated 8‑1‑1976. He was posted as a Lecturer in Siraj‑ud‑Doula College, Federal B. Area, Karachi on 24‑2‑1976, from where he was transferred to Shah Latif Government College, Mirpurkhas. While he was serving at Mirpurkhas, a notice dated 9‑12‑1978 was issued by respondent No. 2 for interview on 21‑12‑1978 at 9 a.m. It is the case of the petitioner that the above letter for the interview was received by him on 21‑12‑1978 and, therefore, he had no time to reach Hyderabad where the interview was to take place. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the very day he phoned the respondent No. 2 and also sent a telegram. The above averments are supported by the original receipt issued by the public Telephone Call Office and a copy of the telegram and also by a certificate issued by the Pakistan Post Office bearing No. F‑2/GLO‑94, dated 18‑10‑1979 issued by the Assistant Postmaster, Mirpurkhas that the letter for the interview was factually delivered to the petitioner on 21‑12‑1978. It seems that in spite of the above request made by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner to appear in interview. Consequently, the petitioner's services as a Lecturer, were terminated on 28‑1‑1979 on the ground that he had not appeared before the Sind Public Service Commission and that his appointer was not regularised. The petitioner made several representations but thereafter filed the: present petition.

3. We arc pained to note 'that this simple petition has come up for regular hearing after about 9 years and by the passage of time the things have chanted.

4. In our view, the petitioner was entitled to have another opportunity for the interview if actually he has not received the letter in time to make himself available for interview on 21‑12‑1978 at Hyderabad. The respondents have not produced any material on record to refute the averments of the petitioner that factually be received the interview letter in Mirpurkhas on 21‑12‑1978 as certified by the postal authorities.

5. We are inclined to hold that it will be just and proper to direct the respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to appear as a candidate for Lectureship in English in an interview, which is to be held in near future subject to the ` eligibility of the petitioner for the post applied for.

6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. A.A./S‑411/K Petition accepted.