2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

This is a writ petition, whereby, petitioners have sought the following remedy:- "It is humbly prayed that while keeping in view what has been narrated in preceding Para's the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 may graciously be directed to issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 with effect from 4/11/2011 against the post allocated to Union Council Marmay and the impugned order dated 4/11/2011 issued in favour of respondents Nos.5 and 6 in flagrant violation of the notification in favour of respondents Nos.5 and 6 may kindly be revoked to meet the ends of justice please."

2. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the material available on file. Petitioners filed this petition, feeling aggrieved from appointment of respondents Nos.5 and 6 against the suit posts. Petitioners further alleged that appointment of respondents Nos.5 and 6 is in contravention of the notification No.SEC.EDU-2(14)/2011 dated 03-11-2011. The question needs clarification is, what are the contents of notification No.Sec.Edu-2 (14)/2011 dated 03-11-2011, issued from the office of Secretary Education and Women Development? Per averments of para No.3 of the petition, the ministries concerned declared/identified Union Council Marmay (Shounter) as one of the hard areas of Tehsil Shounter, Astore. Petitioners are, per averments of the petition, residents of the said union council, therefore, are entitled to be appointed against the suit posts, as they have qualified the test and were placed in serial Nos.3-6 in the merit list of the test taken for appointment against the suit posts. It has further been averred in para No.3 of the petition that respondents Nos.5 and 6 belong to another area and union council, therefore, were not entitled to be appointed against the suit posts. We have noted that petitioners are four in number while respondents Nos.5 and 6 are two persons, and in case of acceptance of this petition, who, among the four petitioners, will be selected for appointment against the suit posts. This question remained unanswered during the arguments, therefore, there is vagueness about the mis-joinder or correct-joinder of causes of action as well as wrong or correct arraying of petitioners to the petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for parties on the question of distribution/allocation of posts of BPS-14 among the different union councils of district Astore, as has been alleged in paras Nos.2 and 3 of the petition. It is not disputed that the suit posts are of BPS-14 and distribution/allocation of such posts on the basis of areas of union council is obviously very wrong and is against the basic principles of merit. In our opinion, respondents did not observe such allocation or distribution in the case in hand and we direct for avoiding this trend in any part of Gilgit-Baltistan.

4. In our opinion, petitioners were bound to establish that they were entitled to the suit appointment in preference of respondents Nos.5 and 6 or they were entitled to be appointed against the suit posts as a result of any discrimination displayed by respondents. Petitioners did not cite any document showing that they were entitled to be appointed against the suit posts in preference of respondents Nos.5 and 6 nor petitioners showed any discrimination on the part of respondents in connection with the appointment against the suit posts.

5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petition is baseless and merits dismissal. Petition dismissed. File be consigned to record. ZC/139/GB Petition dismissed.