2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

I intend to decide the following Constitutional petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:‑‑

1. Writ Petition No. 11791 of 2003.

2. Writ Petition No. 12377 of 2003.

3. Writ Petition No. 12127 of 2303.

4. Writ Petition No. 12546 of 2003. 5.Writ Petition No. 10703 of 2003.

2. The brief facts out of which the aforesaid writ petitions arise are that the respondents issued advertisement to fill the posts in question. The petitioners in obedience of the advertisement of the respondents preferred their applications. The respondents issued call notices to the petitioners to appear in the written test. The petitioner appeared in the written test and passed the same. The respondents thereafter issued call letters to the petitioners to appear in the interview and viva. The petitioners appeared in the interview and viva held by the respondents. ‑The petitioners secured position in the merit list at S. Nos.2 to

5. The respondents did not issue the appointment letters to the petitioners. The respondents issued letters to the petitioners by Divisional Superintendent Postal Service Sialkot to appear before the respondents for re examination. The petitioners being aggrieved filed the aforesaid writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that Miss Fauzia Yaqub appeared alongwith the petitioners who stood first in the merit list. The respondents did not issue appointment letter to Miss Fauzia Yaqub who filed Writ Petition No.4920 of 2003 which was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 3‑7‑2003. The cases of the petitioners are exactly similar to the case of Miss F,auzia Yaqub.

4. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General submits that Constitutional petitions are not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. He further submits that the Constitutional petitions are liable to be dismissed on the well‑known principle of laches. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the ' learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

6. The case of the petitioners is exactly similar to the case of Miss Fauzia Yaqub who appeared alongwith the petitioners in the written test and interview and secured position No.

1. The Constitutional petition filed by Miss Fauzia Yaqub was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 3‑7‑2003 reported as Miss Fauzia Yaqub v. Assistant Postmaster General Punjab, Lahore (2003 PLC (C.S.) 1274). For the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 3‑7‑2003 passed in Miss Fauzia Yaqub's case these writ petitions are also accepted keeping in view the principle of consistency. Even otherwise I am not in a position to deviate from my own view on the principle of consistency as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf, Khan (PLD 1959 SC 9). The other contention of the learned Deputy Attorney‑General that Constitutional petitions are liable to be dismissed on the well known principle of laches has no merit in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Zaeer Khalid v. Baha‑ud‑Din Zakariya University and others (1995 SCMR 723). In view of what has been discussed above, these Constitutional petitions are accepted in terms of judgment passed in Miss Fauzia Yaqub's supra (2003 PLC (C.S.) 1274). M.H./Z‑212/L Petitions allowed.