2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.

The petitioner has challenged the vires of the judgment dated 4-11-2009 wherein the Constitution Petition filed by him against the selection of respondent No.4 was dismissed.

2. Necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that respondents Nos.1 to 3 selected respondent No.4 qua the post in question in spite of the fact that the petitioner had more experience as compared to respondent No.4. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitution Petition No.492 of 2009 before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which was dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 4-11-2009. Hence the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents had wrongly ignored the petitioner in spite of the fact that petitioner had requisite experience of 15 years in terms of the public notice. The impugned judgment was passed without application of mind and without adverting to the documents attached by the petitioner along with Constitution Petition.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment to resolve the controversy between the parties which is .to the following effect:

"Today the representative of the said respondent appeared along with the record and it was stated at the bar that the petitioner was having less experience than the required experience of 15 years as mentioned in the public notice, therefore, he could not be selected. Time and again the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to show to the Court any experience certificate in his possession which if considered would bring his total experience to 15 years or more but both were unable to produce anything in support of that rather they sought time to produce the said certificate which in our view is an attempt to procure: a fake certificate from private institute which is easily available and accessible to all and if at all he was in possession of such certificate being highly qualified person and knowing well that 15 years experience was a must he would have definitely annexed the said certificate with his application which is not the case in hand. As petitioner has unnecessarily taxed the Court and has vexed the respondent official for no good reason, therefore, this petition is dismissed in limine with cost of Rs.1000."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any document on the basis of which the petitioner had claimed that he had requisite experience of 15 years. The learned High Court had given various opportunities to the petitioner to produce the requisite document with regard to his experience of more than 15 years but the petitioner had failed to produce any document. The learned High Court had given finding of fact against the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel had failed to show any document regarding his experience. It is a settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of finding duly recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment while exercising power under Article 185(3) of the Constitution as law laid down by this Court in Ata Ullah Malik's case PLD 1964 SC

236. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to raise any question of public importance. It is settled principle of law that constitutional jurisdiction is a discretionary in nature. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner as highlighted by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment, we do not find any force in the instant petition which is dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./S-9/SC Petition dismissed.