2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Vested right‑‑‑High Court in absence of any injury to vested right of petitioner could not interfere. Mian Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record, for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑--The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the order of Secretary Local Government of the Punjab, dated 9‑9‑2000 whereby the District Council Jhang was directed to make appointment after lifting of ban and. by snaking proper advertisement.

2. The thrust of arguments of Mian Muhammad Nawaz learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner is that the Commissioner while allowing the appeal of the petitioner had directed the quarter concerned to take necessary steps for a fresh recruitment and therefore, the direction of Secretary, Local Government is uncalled for seems to be devoid of merit as due to the observations of Commissioner no legal right was accrued in favour of the petitioner and hence the question of its infringement does not arise. The prime contention of the learned Advocate Supreme Court, as mentioned hereinabove, has been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner by the learned High Court in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:‑‑ "(6) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The fact of the matter is that while the learned Commissioner had declared the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 as illegal, no specific relief was granted to the petitioners in terms that they should be considered for appointment. The other undisputed fact is that the petitioners A were not selected to the posts for which they were the candidates. Unless, therefore, the petitioners were selected as a result of process of selection undertaken in 1995, they could not insist even on reconsideration of their case for appointment in view of the ban on recruitment imposed vide letter, dated 4‑4‑1996. It is otherwise, a matter of policy and this Court cannot interfere in the absence of any injury to the vested right of the petitioners. Merely because the petitioners had applied for post in question, it could not be said that they had a vested right to insist that the process of selection should be undertaken even I during the ban. The order passed by the 'Secretary, Local Government is otherwise just and fair. The petitioners can take a chance as and when the ban is lifted and the posts are advertised. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere. All these petitions are dismissed."

3. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Single Judge in Chambers being well‑based does not warrant any interference. The petitioner should try his luck after the lifting of ban as at this stage he has no grievance to be redressed. The petition being merit less is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./A‑9/S Leave refused.