P L D 1994 Supreme Court 91 (PLP)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing the Constitution petition in limine by which she had challenged the order of the Ombudsman.

2. The petitioner was serving as a teacher in the Embassy School at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan through the Overseas Employment Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. advertised a post for recruitment of Headmistress for the said school. Petitioner and respondent No.5 applied for the post. The Selection Board selected the petitioner against which a representation was made by respondent No.5 before the Ombudsman. It was pleaded that she had higher experience and qualifications and therefore she was entitled to the post in preference to the petitioner. The Ombudsman by order, dated 23‑8‑1993 declared the selection of the petitioner as null and void she being ineligible for the post and nominated respondent No.5 for the post of Headmistress, Embassy School Jeddah. The petitioner filed Constitution petition which was dismissed in limine by the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Ombudsman did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case as the school did not fall within the term of "agency" as defined by Art.2(1) of the President's Order ,No.l/ 1983 (Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983). He further contended that the School is a private one and the assistance of the Government of )Pakistan and Overseas Employment Corporation (Pvt.) Ltca. ‑was sought only for advertisement and recruitment of a suitable candidate. The learned counsel also submitted that if the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction, it is barred under Article 9(2) of the Order.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that as alternate remedy provided under the Order has not been availed by the petitioner, the Constitution petition was rightly and legally dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the remedy provided under Article 32 of the Order cannot be treated as an efficacious and adequate remedy. Article 32 of the Order reads as follows:‑‑‑ "

32. Representation to President. ‑‑‑Any person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Mohtasib may, within thirty days of the decision or order, make a representation to the President, who may pass such order thereon as he may deem fit:" According to Article 32 any person aggrieved can make a representation to the President. It does not provide for any appeal and therefore the question arises whether the remedy of representation can be treated as an adequate and efficacious remedy to disentitle an aggrieved party from invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. In the impugned order reliance has been placed on Water .and Power Development Authority and others v. The Commissioner, Hazara Division and others 1982 SCMR 2102 in which this Court refused to interfere as remedy provided under Article 32 was not Whether in view of Article 9 of President's Order No.l of 1983 the Ombudsman had the jurisdiction in the case? (ii) Whether the remedy provided under Article 32 of President's Order No.l/1983 can be treated as an efficacious and adequate remedy? M.BA./A‑1048/S Leave granted.