Muhammad Nadeem and 3 others V. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department and 3 others,
PLD 2016 Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a dispute over government job appointments in Balochistan. In 2004, several candidates, including the petitioners, applied for the post of Assistant Investigating Officer in the Home and Tribal Affairs Department after tests and interviews were conducted by a Departmental Selection Committee. The petitioners claimed they topped the merit list but were later bypassed when a 2007 notification appointed other candidates (the private respondents) instead.
The petitioners challenged this notification in the High Court, seeking to have it declared illegal and asking that they be appointed according to the merit list. However, the court found that these appointments were actually made in compliance with an earlier Division Bench judgment from 2007, which had already resolved a related case (filed by some of the private respondents) and directed the government to appoint those selected candidates.
The court ruled that the petitioners' case was barred by the principle of "constructive res judicata," meaning the same issues had already been decided and could not be relitigated using different arguments. It also held that courts should not interfere with selection committee decisions absent bad faith, and noted the private respondents had already served over eight years without complaints, making it unjust to disturb their positions now.
The petition was dismissed. This case reinforces that final court decisions cannot be reopened indefinitely, and that long-serving employees should not be displaced without strong legal justification.
یہ مقدمہ بلوچستان میں سرکاری ملازمتوں کی تقرری کے تنازعے سے متعلق تھا۔ 2004 میں کئی امیدواروں نے، جن میں درخواست گزار بھی شامل تھے، محکمہ داخلہ و امور قبائل میں اسسٹنٹ انویسٹیگیٹنگ آفیسر کی آسامی کے لیے درخواست دی تھی، جس کے بعد ایک ڈیپارٹمنٹل سلیکشن کمیٹی نے ٹیسٹ اور انٹرویو منعقد کیے۔ درخواست گزاروں کا دعویٰ تھا کہ وہ میرٹ لسٹ میں سب سے آگے تھے لیکن بعد ازاں انہیں نظرانداز کر دیا گیا جب 2007 کے ایک نوٹیفیکیشن کے ذریعے ان کی بجائے دیگر امیدواروں (نجی مدعا علیہان) کو تعینات کر دیا گیا۔
درخواست گزاروں نے اس نوٹیفیکیشن کو ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا اور استدعا کی کہ اسے غیر قانونی قرار دیا جائے اور انہیں میرٹ لسٹ کے مطابق تعینات کیا جائے۔ تاہم عدالت نے پایا کہ یہ تقرریاں دراصل 2007 کے ایک سابقہ ڈویژن بنچ کے فیصلے کی تعمیل میں کی گئی تھیں، جس نے ایک متعلقہ مقدمے (جو کچھ نجی مدعا علی