2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

HAIDER ALI KHAN, J.

Inamullah, the petitioner herein, has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, praying that:- "On acceptance of the instant writ petition, this Honorable Court may kindly issue an appropriate writ to the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of constable as per the merit list. Any other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances may also very kindly be granted."

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he successfully qualified the written and physical tests as well as the interview held for the post of constable advertised by the Police Department but his appointment was refused by the Respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner was previously convicted under section 13 A.O. and sentenced to fine of Rs.100/- by Court of EAC, Babozai.

3. Para-wise comments of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 were called for who submitted the same and refuted the petitioner's stance by raising various legal as well as factual objections.

4. Learned A.A.G., who happens to be present in Court in some other cases, accepted notice of the present petition for today and contended that the petitioner was not eligible for his appointment in view of his conviction and so his appointment was rightly refused by the competent authority which is in accordance with law.

5. From perusal of the available record it transpires that the petitioner was otherwise qualified for his appointment as constable, however, he was refused on the ground of his conviction under section 13 A.O. by EAC/Illaqa Qazi Babozai vide order dated 25.1.2007. No doubt, those citizens are debarred under the Constitution from their appointment to superior positions who are convicted in cases that fall into one of moral turpitude, of scandalizing the judiciary and the Armed Forces, of undermining the ideology and security of Pakistan and other offences of the like nature, however, case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the aforementioned categories. In this regard opinion of the District Public Prosecutor, Shangla and request of Regional Police Officer/DIG Malakand Region are available on case file which show that the petitioner is not involved in any case of moral turpitude and he has duly been recommended by them for his appointment on merit. Moreso, the petitioner had been convicted for possessing .12 bore live cartridges ten in number and he was sentenced to pay Rs.100/- as fine. Keeping in view the quantum of sentence, the appointing authority has taken quite harsh view in case of the petitioner which in simple terms is 100 rupees fine versus lifelong ban against government appointment which fact surely offends against his most fundamental right to life which has cherishly been guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreso, it seems that the petitioner had confessed his guilt before the Court in the criminal case registered against him just to avoid the Court proceedings as is the general practice of the public which is very common and natural. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the previous criminal case against the petitioner, it would be quite unjust to keep him debarred for ever to enter upon government service. Thus, the respondent No.2 has not acted in accordance with law while refusing appointment to the petitioner as constable on the same reason alone.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner forthwith against the post he applied for. ZC/374/P Petition allowed.