Aijaz Ali v. Secretary Government of Balochistan,
PLC (C.S) 2010 1449 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a government employee, Aijaz Ali, who worked as a Junior Clerk in Balochistan's Employees Social Security Institution (BESSI). When the department advertised for the post of Office Assistant in 2007, he applied and appeared for tests and an interview. A selection committee recommended two other candidates for the existing vacancies but placed Aijaz Ali on a waiting list, to be considered only if a new Office Assistant post became available in future. When such a post was later reportedly created, he sought court orders directing the department to appoint him, arguing that since he had qualified in the interview, the committee's recommendation was binding and the authorities were legally bound to honor it. His lawyer relied on the legal principle of locus poenitentiae, meaning that once an official decision is made in someone's favor, the authorities cannot go back on it.
The Balochistan High Court rejected this argument. It held that the selection committee had only been authorized to fill posts that already existed and were advertised at the time, not future or non-existent posts. Any recommendation about a future vacancy was beyond the committee's authority and had no legal effect. Since there was no valid, legally binding order in the petitioner's favor to begin with, the principle of locus poenitentiae did not apply. The court dismissed the petition, meaning Aijaz Ali had no enforceable right to appointment.
This case clarifies that recommendations exceeding a selection committee's mandate carry no legal weight, and administrative bodies cannot be forced to honor promises made outside their proper authority.
یہ مقدمہ ایک سرکاری ملازم اعجاز علی سے متعلق ہے جو بلوچستان ایمپلائیز سوشل سیکیورٹی انسٹی ٹیوشن (بیسی) میں جونیئر کلرک کے عہدے پر تعینات تھے۔ جب محکمے نے 2007 میں آفس اسسٹنٹ کی آسامی کے لیے اشتہار دیا تو انہوں نے درخواست دی اور ٹیسٹ و انٹرویو میں شریک ہوئے۔ سلیکشن کمیٹی نے موجودہ خالی آسامیوں کے لیے دو دیگر امیدواروں کی سفارش کی، جبکہ اعجاز علی کو ویٹنگ لسٹ میں رکھا گیا تاکہ مستقبل میں اگر آفس اسسٹنٹ کی نئی آسامی پیدا ہو تو ان پر غور کیا جا سکے۔ جب بعد میں مبینہ طور پر ایسی ایک نئی آسامی پیدا ہوئی تو انہوں نے عدالت سے رجوع کیا اور درخواست کی کہ محکمے کو ان کی تقرری کا حکم دیا جائے۔ ان کا موقف تھا کہ چونکہ وہ انٹرویو میں کامیاب قرار پائے تھے، اس لیے کمیٹی کی سفارش پر عملدرآمد لازم تھا اور حکام قانوناً اس کے پابند تھے۔ ان کے وکیل نے اصولِ "لوکس پو