2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner namely Saeedullah under 71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009 read with enabling Articles of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has sought the following remedies:- Prayer :- It is, therefore, humbly prayed that- (a) The respondents Nos.1 to 5 may be directed to appoint the petitioner and be treated the petitioner similar to respondents No.6 to 22 accordingly. (b) Any other relief may be granted which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice, law, equity and equality.

2. Brief facts of the instant writ petition as gathered from the contents of writ petition are that the present petitioner applied for a post of EST (BPS-14) in Education Department Gilgit-Baltistan as the respondents Nos.1 to 5 had advertised some posts of EST (BPS-14). The petitioner appeared in written test and interview and qualified/passed said test/interview, but the respondents Nos.1 to 5 have not appointed the petitioner against the post of EST (BPS-14) rather the respondents Nos.1 to 5 by violating the merit list have appointed the respondents Nos.6 to 22 who had obtained less marks from the petitioner in the said test/interview. This act of the respondents Nos.1 to 5 is illegal, against the recruitment policy, without jurisdiction and against the principle of equity.

3. A copy of writ petition was supplied to the respondents for furnishing of parawise-comments. Accordingly, the respondents Nos.1 to 5 furnished their parawise-comments, wherein they have repudiated contents/averments of writ petition and have also raised certain legal objections.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner had passed/qualified test/interview conducted by the respondents Nos.1 to 5, but the respondents Nos.1 to 5 instead of appointing the petitioner have appointed the respondents Nos.6 to 22 who had obtained less marks in written test and interview. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondents Nos.1 to 5 have violated the law and recruitment policy of Education Department by appointing the respondents Nos.6 to 22 in utter violation of merit list, therefore, by accepting this writ petition the respondents Nos.1 to 5 may be directed to appoint the petitioner against a post of EST (BPS-14).

5. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General and Legal Adviser of Education Department vehemently opposed this writ petition by contending that the respondents Nos.1 to 5 have appointed the respondents Nos.6 to 22 on merit as the respondents Nos.6 to 22 had scored higher marks in written test and interview from the petitioner. The learned A.A.G. and LA Education Department GB further argued that the writ petition of the petitioner is time barred as the respondents Nos.6 to 22 were appointed against the posts of EST (BPS-14) on 4th November, 2011 and the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 22-01-2018.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

8. From perusal of record it transpires that the respondents Nos.6 to 22 were appointed by respondents Nos.1 to 5 vide office order No.Sec.Edu-2(19)/2011 dated 4th November, 2011. The present petitioner has remained silent/ mum for about more than 7 years and has filed the instant writ petition on 22-01.2018, thus principle of laches attracts to the case of the present petitioner as the respondents Nos.6 to 22 have served for about more 7 years in Education Department and at this belated stage the respondents Nos.6 to 22 cannot be terminated/disturbed even if they had scored less marks in the test/interview.

9. The superior courts have held that aggrieved party may invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 99 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 within a reasonable time and interpreted "reasonable time" to be 90 days, therefore, the present writ petition suffer from laches.

10. It is settled preposition that the delay defeat equities or equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. The present petitioners being fully aware of appointment order dated 4th November 2011 issued in favour of respondents Nos.6 to 22 did not immediately approach this court by way of writ petition and has allowed a period of 7 years and 10 months to lapse before approaching the court.

11. It is also settled principle of law that law favours vigilant and does not favour indolent. In this connection, reliance can be placed on reported judgments of superior courts (1) 2012 CLC 1729 (2) 2014 PLC (C.S.) 352.

12. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is bereft of the merit, therefore, is not maintainable at all and is hereby dismissed. File. ZC/151/GB Petition dismissed.