2003 PLP 382 (CLC)

Malik Khizar Hayat Khan, Asstt. A.‑G. (on Court's call). The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:‑‑ "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the decisions of the Punjab Services Tribunal in Case No.473/852 of 1984 and Case No.485/888 of 1984 based upon rules framed by the Governor may kindly be got implemented in letter and spirit from the respondent and a direction be issued to the respondent to do the needful."

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that two Sub Divisional Officers namely Muhammad Idrees and Riaz Ahmad filed appeal before the Service Tribunal wherein they claimed for separate share out of 20 % quota of reserved for Sub‑Engineer for promotion. The respondents contested the appeal before the Service Tribunal and took a stand that there was no separate quota reserved for Civil and Mechanical Sub‑Engineers separately and they would want to be promoted on the basis of one list. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the Service Tribunal and the stand of the department was accepted by the Service Tribunal. The respondents without any amendment in the relevant rules promoted Civil Sub‑Engineers separately in violation of the stand taken by the respondents in the appeal filed by Muhammad Idrees and Riaz Ahmad aforesaid and in violation of the judgment of the Service Tribunal. Petitioners being aggrieved filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. Petitioners also filed C.M. No.2 of 2002 alongwith this writ petition with the prayer for suspension of the impugned order dated 3‑4‑2002. The learned Law Officer submits that writ petition is not maintainable.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.

4. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the order dated 3‑4‑2002 to resolve the controversy between the parties:‑‑ "Consequent upon the judgment dated 28‑1‑2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.3868 of 2000 filed by you, this Department's Order No. SO(E‑II) 1 493/94, dated 2‑3‑2000 regarding posting as Sub‑Engineer (substantive rank), stand restored. (2) You are, therefore, directed to report to Chief Engineer. Irrigation, Faisalabad (Parent Zone) for further posting against your substantive rank of Sub‑Engine (3) Non‑compliance of the orders will be dealt with under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 read with 2001. " The aforesaid order reveals that respondents passed the said order in obedience of the direction of this Court's order dated 28‑1‑2002 passed in Writ Petition No.3868 of 2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the Writ Petition No.3868 of 2000 was dismissed alongwith the connected writ petitions including Writ Petition No.3122 of 2000. It is pertinent to mention here that Writ Petition No.3868 of 2000 was filed by Haider Zaman present petitioner through Sh. Munir Ahmad, Advocate which was finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28‑1‑2002. The petitioner had taken a specific stand in Writ Petition No.3868 of 2000 in ground (b) which is to the following effect:‑‑ "That the respondent No. 1 is bound under the , law to implement the judgment delivered by the Punjab Service Tribunal, but in the year 1984‑91, but due to non‑availability of contempt powers the order has not been implemented today by the respondent No. 1 rather he has acted against the verdict of the Tribunal thus the order is devoid of any legal sanctity. " The petitioner has filed this writ petition for redressal of said grievance raised by the petitioner in the said writ petition. It is settled principle of law that principles of Civil Procedure Code are applicable in Constitutional proceedings as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hussain Bakhsh's case PLD 1970 SC

1. Second writ petition qua the same subject‑matter and relief in view of section 11 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh's case PLD 1987 SC

145. The petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court as the petitioner did not mention a single word qua filing of Writ Petition No.3868 of 2000 in the contents of the writ petition. It is settled principle of law that Constitutional remedy is discretionary in character. Keeping in view that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:‑‑ Abdul Rashid v. Pakistan and others 1999 SCMR 141 and Nawrab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC

236. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./H‑106/L Petition dismissed.