2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

JAWAD HASSAN, J.

This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.01.2016 (the "Impugned Judgment") passed by the learned Single Judge whereby constitutional petition filed by the Appellant, was dismissed.

2. Facts briefly for the disposal of this Intra Court Appeal are that the Appellant filed W.P. No.21450/2015 before the learned Single Judge against the order dated 22.04.2015 (the "Impugned Order") passed by the Respondent No.1, whereby he had rejected the Representation of the Appellant being grossly time barred.

3. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the Appellant applied for the post of ASI in Lahore Region, where 162 posts of ASI were advertised for male candidates and the Appellant was at serial No.163 in the merit list after qualifying written and interview tests as conveyed by the Respondent No.2 through its Secretary vide Letter No.PSC-RBIII-2009/5460 dated 19.08.2009 and then the Appellant filed the Representation on 10.02.2015, which was not decided until the High Court directed on 2.3.2015 to decide the same, which was dismissed.

4. Arguments heard and record perused.

5. After examining the Impugned Order, it becomes unequivocal that the Representation of the Appellant was time barred as recommendation of the Respondent No.2 was issued vide its letter dated 6.2.2009 and conveyed to the Appellant on 19.08.2009 in which it was clearly mentioned that the Appellant could not come in the orbit of selection due to lower position of merit. It is evident that list was issued on 6.2.2009 and the Representation was filed on 11.02.2015 after elapse of six years, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that period of about seven years has elapsed and much water has been passed under the bridge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Abdul Wahid v. Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another (1998 SCMR 882) has held as under:- "Aggrieved person does not have unfettered discretion to file representation, appeal or review before the next higher/specified Authority at any time. Line has be drawn whereafter no representation would be competent or entertainable. Any commission, slackness, negligence without specifying sufficient cause with regard to commencing period of representation contained in Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 cannot be easily ignored or overlooked. If original representation was barred by time and aggrieved employee did not disclose sufficient causes for such delay or inability to move Departmental Authority within prescribed period, then no subsequent order of disposal of such incompetent representation/appeal/review could create fresh cause of action or automatically operate to condone delay of limitation in availing the remedy under Section 4 of Service Tribunal Act, 1973." We fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge in which it was held that remedy of review was available to the Appellant in terms of the Regulation No.33 of the Punjab Service Commission Regulations, 2000, but he did not avail the same within due time and instead opted to file Writ Petition No.5697/2015 which was disposed of on 2.3.2015, whereafter the Respondent No.1 decided his Representation through order dated 22.04.2015, which is in accordance with law and rules. We are coincided with the view taken by learned Single Judge that the Appellant has no vested right to seek a direction for his appointment for a particular post by filing a constitutional petition. The learned counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment which otherwise is apt and in accordance with law. The appeal being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed in limine. MH/T-18/L Appeal dismissed