2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.

Through captioned Constitution Petition, petitioner Muhammad Amjad has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, and prayed, to direct respondent No.2 to issue office letter/appointment order, as issued to the other candidates.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has applied for the post of PST and he secured 110 marks and his name appeared in the merit list but respondents issued appointment letters to other candidates. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner and other candidates filed C.P. No.330 of 2009 before this Court but same was dismissed on the false statement of the respondents that petitioner had secured less marks than other candidates who were issued appointment letters. Learned counsel further urged that one Ameer-Ullah Siddqui made complainant and respondent No.2 in his reply had admitted that petitioner had already been appointed being successful candidate, but till date no appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner; that petitioner in view of respondents' record, moved an application for issuance of appointment letter but no order has been issued with ulterior motives. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the Law Officer's letter, respondents had issued a re-examined and re-checked list of candidates and the name of the petitioner was placed on serial No.1 and subsequently, except the petitioner, all other candidates have been issued appointment letters; that for the above reasons, petitioner has again approached this Court through instant petition, hence respondents may be directed to issue appointment order.

3. Respondent No.2/Director Schools, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad has filed comments wherein in reply to para-6 of the petition, it is admitted that petitioner was selected in the merit list of IBA for the post of PST BPS-09 at Serial No.132, U.C. 04 Male, Latifabad. Pursuant to notice, issued by this Court, Muhammad Alam Thaheem, Ex-Director School Education, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad has filed statement along with a copy of list of 46 candidates for issuance of offer orders. In the said list name of petitioner Muhammad Amjad is also mentioned at serial No.1 of Latifabad Male candidates.

4. Learned A.A.G. as well as official respondents present in Court conceded that since petitioner was succeeded in examination for the post of Primary School Teacher on merits, hence his case will be processed for seeking approval of the competent authority.

5. Perusal of record emanates that petitioner is permanent resident of UC-04, Taluka Latifabad, District Hyderabad, while respondents had advertised posts of Primary School Teachers (PST) in all Districts of Sindh and petitioner being eligible and having required qualification, applied for the said post of Primary School Teacher (PST) and submitted his application, after scrutinizing /verifying the documents/testimonials of the petitioner, he was issued admit card with seat No.24530 for his appearance on 04.07.2007 for written test being held by Sukkur Institute of Business Administration. Petitioner appeared in said examination and he secured total Marks 110 in UC No.4, Taluka Latifabad and his name was enlisted at Serial No.132 of the merit list and his posting has been shown at GPS T.B. Clinic, nevertheless petitioner was not issued offer letter/appointment order, while other candidates were issued offer letters/appointment orders and they have been serving in Education Department. Petitioner and others aggrieved candidates filed C.P. No.330 of 2009 in this Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2012 with the reasons that the candidates who secured more marks than the petitioners, have been appointed, which is reproduced as under:-- "15.02.2012. Mr. Mehmood Hussain Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G. a/w lftikhar Ahmed Rajput Law Officer for Director Schools Education Hyderabad. === In this case, the petitioners claim that they appeared and secured the written test and obtained 60% marks. The facts are that the petitioners appeared in the written test and have passed minimum passing marks and were declared successful. However, in para wise comments, it is stated that under the recruitment policy as discussed in Judgment in case of Shabbir Hussain v. EDO (Education) and 5 others reported in 2012 CLC 16, a merit list was to be prepared and in the merit list though the petitioners have passed the written test but since there were other candidates, who achieved-more marks based on the criterion of the recruitment policy, the Petitioners could not be appointed. This Court finds no justification to interfere hence this petition is dismissed along with listed application."

6. Subsequently, on the complaint of one Ameerullah Siddqui, that respondent No.2 vide letter dated: 05.08.2011, had informed the Deputy Program Manager, RSU, Education and Literacy Department, Government of Sindh that petitioner Muhammad Amjad son of Faqeer Muhammad having seat No.24530 had already been appointed, who secured total 110 Marks in UC No.4, but despite of the above admission, petitioner was neither issued offer letter/ appointment order nor he was being properly responded. It would be advantageous to reproduce above referred letter as follows:-- "No DSE/LSO/-08 Hyderabad/2011-12 DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION HYDERABAD REGION HYDERABAD Hyderabad, Dated 5.8.2011 To, The Deputy Program Manger Reform Support Unit Education and Literacy Department Government and Literacy Department Government of Sindh, Karachi. Subject: DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF OFFER LETTER TO THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE POST OF PST AS HE CLAIMED TO HAVE PASS THE TEST AND STOOD AT SR.No.255 OF THE MERIT LIST E.T.C. COMPLAINANT MR. AMEERULLAH SIDDIQUI. Reference: Deputy Program Manger, Reform Support Unit (RSU) letter No.RSU/DPM/TR-II/2011 dated 02.08.2011. In compliance to your office letter under reference on the subject noted above. It is submitted that this office has received a complaint lodged by Mr. Ameerullah Siddiqui on the subject noted above through Provincial Ombudsman Sindh vide letter dated 29.5.2009. The brief facts of the case are submitted as under. That Mr. Ameerullah Siddiqui appeared for the test conducted by the IBA Sukkur for the post of PST under seat No.25955 from U.C.# 9 Latifabad Hyderabad and secured 68 marks. That since no more post of PST was vacant in UC # 9 Latifabad, he was considered at Taluka Level, whereas per parameter set out by the District Recruitment Committee (DRC) he got 105 marks, where as the lat candidate who was appointed got 110 marks. Of late after lapse of considerable time the complainant came up with a new plea that he actually belongs to UC No.4 as such he be considered in that UC taking a lenient view, the complainant was considered in UC No.4" whereas per prescribed method he got 110 marks, where the last candidate name Mr. Muhammad Amjad son of Faqeer Muhammad having seat No.24530 also having got 110 marks has already been selected as PST. Since Muhammad Amjad was appointed almost two years prior to his new plea and also considering having not secured more marks, he was not considered for appointment as PST. It is further added that there is no any provision for appointment and there is already over staffing in Taluka Latifabad as per Student Teachers Ration (STR) norm. Further instructions are solicited. Sd/- DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION HYDERABAD, REGION, HYDERABAD"

7. Thereafter having copy of letter dated 5.11.2011, petitioner moved application dated: 22.11.2011 to respondent No.2, and apprised the above position that on the one hand he has been shown already appointed and on the other hand no appointment order was issued to him, nevertheless no action so far has been initiated by the respondent No.2 and said application still pending undecided.

8. Conversely, the Law Officer for the respondent No.2 after re-examination of the cases pending with respondent No.2 vide letter dated 21.06.2012 had finalized a list of 10 candidates in compliance of order dated: 22.02.2012 of this Court in C.Ps. Nos.564 of 2009, 565 of 2009 and 237 of 2009 and the name of the petitioner again appeared at Sr.No.1 out of those 10 candidates which is re-produced as follows:-- "1) Dated 21.06.2012 Letter No.DSE/LO(LSC)/655 Year: 2011-2012. Subject: THE RE-EXAMINE/RE-CHECK THE IBA PST TEACHERS AS ORDER PASSED BY HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD DATED 22.02.2012 REGARDING CPs NOS.D-564/2009, 565/2009 AND 237/2009. The following files of IBA PST Teachers are hereby submitted for further necessary action.

1. Muhammad Amjad son of Faqeer Muhammad

2. Muhammad Tahir son of Muhammad Hafeez

3. Ashfaque Ahmed son of Muhammad Ramzan

4. Azam Ali son of Muhammad Bashir

5. Abid Raza son of Hyder Raza

6. Sajid Iqbal son of Muhammad Rafique

7. Sarfaraz Ahmed son of Shabir Ahmed Qureshi,

8. Naseer Ahmed son of Muhammad Rahim

9. Muhammad Amir son of Din Muhammad

10. Karim Ahmed son of Jamil Ahmed (IFTIKHAR AHMED RAJPUT) LAW OFFICER FOR DIRECTOR SCHOOLS EDUCATION HYDERABAD REGION HYDERABAD"

9. It is significant to mention that notwithstanding to above factual position respondent No.2 vide order No.DEO(ADMN)/180/2013-14 dated 22.08.2013 had appointed 10 candidates, but the petitioner has been kept on false hopes and promises, which is re-produced as follows:-- "No.DEO(ADMN)/-180/2013-14 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER HYDERABAD Phone # 022-9210280, Fax # 022-9210380 Hyderabad, dated 22.8.2013. In compliance of Court order dated 22.02.2012 under C.P. No.D-564 of 2009; C.P. No.D-565 of 2009 and C.P. No.D-237 of 2009 and by the approval of the competent authority and DRC (District Recruitment Committee) after completing the codal formalities following Candidates are appointee as Primary School Teachers (BPS-09).

1. Mr. Abid Raza son of Hyder Raza Latifabad, Hyderabad. @ GPS Latifabad No.12 U. C.11 Talukar

2. Mr. M. Fahad son of M. Khalid Latifabad, Hyderabad. @ GPS Latifabad No.7 U.C 3 Taluka

3. Mr. Sajid lqbal son of M. Rafique 15 Latifabad, Hyderabad. @ GPS Mosque American Quarter U.C

4. Mr. M. Amir son of Din Muhammad Hyderabad. @ GPS Pathan Colony U.C 3 City

5. Mr. Karim Ahmed son of Jamil Ahmed Hyderabad. @ GPS Sir Syed U.C. 10 Latifabad

6. Mr. Azam Ali son of Muhammad Bashir Hyderabad. @ GPS TB Clinic U.C 04 Latifabad,

7. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed son of Shabir Ahmed Latifabad, Hyderabad. @ GPS Modern U.C. 09

8. Mr. M. Tahir son of M. Hafeez @ Hyderabad. GPS Bachal Laghari U.C. 7 Latifabad,

9. Mr. Ashique Ahmed son of M. Ramzan 12, City Hyderabad. @ GPS Shah Latif Village U.C.

10. Mr. Naseer Ahmed son of M. Rahim U.C 16 Latifabad, Hyderabad. @ GPS Darya Khan Panhwar Sd/- DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER HYDERABAD

10. Indeed, we have also observed that respondents had made a false statement before this Court in C.P. No.D-330 of 2015, that petitioner could not be appointed on merits as he secured less numbers comparing to those candidate who had been appointed by the respondents which reflects ulterior motive and mala fide intention and this conduct could not be ignored in a routine manner but petitioner has not filed any contempt proceeding in said petition. Conversely, the demeanor of respondents is controverting to their official record that the name of the petitioner despite of placement at serial No.1 in list of successful candidates, has been deprived and neglected due to mala fide and ulterior motives which is obviously illegal and against the principles of natural justice, equity and law. Consequently, we are of the firm view that actions and demeanor of the respondents is based on discrimination, unfairness and violation of merit, rules and regulations, which is a clear example of nepotism and favouritism, while the petitioner is admittedly an aggrieved person within the ambit of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, thus it requires interference of this Court by invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

11. Considering the above facts and circumstances, instant Constitution Petition stands disposed of with directions that petitioner will approach respondent No.2 by preferring a fresh application along with all required documents and earlier correspondence of the respondents and respondent No.2 shall process the case within a week to the respondent No.1 for its approval and after compliance of the requisite codal formalities, respondents shall issue offer letter/appointment order to the petitioner within a period of four weeks without fail. Compliance report shall be furnished through Additional Registrar of this Court. In case compliance of this order is not made within the stipulated period, petitioner would be at liberty to file contempt proceedings against the respondents. These are reasons for the short order dated 13.10.2016, whereby instant petition was disposed of, which is reproduced as follows:-- "For the reasons to be recorded later on, instant Constitution Petition was disposed of with directions that petitioner will approach respondent No.2 by preferring an application and respondent No.2 shall process the case of the petitioner within a week to the respondent No.1 for its approval and after compliance of the requisite codal formalities, respondents shall issue offer letter/appointment order to the petitioner within a period of four week without fail." ZC/M-177/Sindh Petition accepted.