2022 PLP 165 (PLC)

NOOR ZAMAN, MEMBER.

The petitioner in his memo. of petition contended that the respondent advertised several posts in 2007 and the petitioner applied for the post of Stenographer BS-15. Accordingly he qualified test and interview for the post of Stenographer but he was appointed as Steno-typist in BS-12. That he agitated this issue before the management of the respondent and the Member (Admn) assured the petitioner that they will look after the case and verbally asked the petitioner to accept offer of appointment for the post of stenotypist which he accepted. He contended that Mr. Aamir Majeed Rathore got 65 Marks while the petitioner secured 70 marks in the test but Mr. Aamir Majeed was appointed as Stenographer and the petitioner as Stenotypist in violation of merit. He further stated that Mr. Aamir Majeed Rathoere illegally appointed on his placed and is now been promoted to BS-16, BS-17 and BS-18. The petitioner has prayed to be treated at par with Mr. Aamir Majeed as he has qualified and was illegally appointed as Stenotypist.

2. On notice the respondent submitted reply on 19-04-2019 whereby it has been contended that the petitioner could not secure required typing/shorthand speed 50/100 w.p.m respectively for Stenographer. However as he had secured the required typing/shorthand speed required for stenotypist therefore, he was offered the post of Stenotypist which he accepted and has been working on the said post since, 2008. That the petition is time barred and not maintainable.

3. The case was fixed for arguments on 14-04-2020. The petitioner as well as learned Labour Representative were not present and the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated contention mentioned in the reply of the respondent.

4. Arguments heard record perused.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 2010 SC 705 held that Law helps vigilant and not the indolent and helping hand might not be extended to a litigant having going into deep slumber or having become forgetful of his rights. The Sindh High Court in PLD 2017 (sic) 451 laid down that 'infact court is duty bound to look into and decide the question at the earliest stage suo motu if mot pointed out by opposite party the question of limitation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down views in PLD 2002 SC 403 that Burden duty of court to notice the question of limitation, irrespective of the fact whether the question has been agitated or not - that any order a judgment passed by Trail Court, Appellate or Revisional Courts should be indicative of the fact that the courts concerned were not only aware but were conscious regarding the question of limitation to deal with the same diligently with application of mind prior to dilating upon and deciding the controversy on merit.

5. The petitioner got test interview and appointment for the year 2008 and has been working as Stenotypsit. He has filed this petition in the year 2018 i.e after 10 years of his appointment without application for condonation of delay or given reason for submitting the petition so delayed. The petition is hit by limitation and is not maintainable, therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to cost. File be consigned to R.R. SA/2/NIRC Petition dismisse