2004 PLP 454 (YLR)

3. The learned Law Officer submits that the appellant had joined his duties as Medical Officer RHC Health since 10-5-2003. Therefore, Intra-Court Appeal has become. infructuous. He further submits that appellant has concealed the material. facts in the Constitutional petition which was taken note by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and did not exercise his discretion in favour of the appellant. He further urges that action of the respondent is not hit by Article 25 of the Constitution.

4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves.

5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge to resolve the controversy between the parties: "Petitioner's conduct at the time of hearing of this petition on 29-5-2002 when he did not disclose the fact that some body has occupied the seat at R.H.C. Dajal also speaks volume about his conduct. Although there was no bar for the petitioner to have applied for R.H.C. Dajal but in- the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not find it necessary to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction, and disturb a person, duly selected after a period of about 1-1/2 years and that too is a contract job."

6. The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that appellant has concealed the material facts at the time of filing of Constitutional petition and secured order from the learned Single Judge without impleading the. respondent No.8 and without challenging the vires of appointment order of respondent No.8 and the Constitutional petition was accepted by the learned Single Judge on 29-5-2002 which was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in I.C.A. No.110 of 2002 vide order dated 25-9-2002. The appellant had concealed the material facts as mentioned above in contents of the Constitutional petition. Therefore, learned Single Judge was justified to dismiss the Constitutional petition which is in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- (1) Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa and others 1983 SCMR 196. (2) Abdul Rashid v. Pakistan and others 1969 SCMR page

141. It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. He who seeks equity must come to Court with clean hands but the appellant did not approach this Court with clean hands .by suppressing material facts from this Court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in not exercising discretion in favour of the appellant which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1975 SC page

236. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events as per law laid down by the Honourable Division Bench of the Karachi High Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- (1) Nasir Jamal v. Zubedia Begum 1990 CLC 1069. (2) Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC page 220.

7. It is admitted fact that appellant has joined the duties as Medical Officer R.H.C. Dajal since 10-5-2003 during the pendency of Intra-Court Appeal. Therefore, Intra Court Appeal has become infructuous on the well known principle of estoppel as the law laid down in Dr. Habibullah's case PLD 1973 SC 144.

7. In view of what has been discussed above we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge, therefore, Intra-Court Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-2160/L Appeal dismissed.