2012 P L C (C.S.) 98
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Qazi Faez Isa, C.J. and Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
ABDUL SATTAR
versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Water and Power Development,
Islamabad and 2 others
Constitutional Petition No.658 of 2011, decided o n 10th October, 2011.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan ---
---Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court ---Scope ---Electric Supply Corporation ---
Assistant lineman, post of Non issuance of appointment letter to petitioner after he was
interviewed a nd declared qualified for such post ---Validity ---Record showed that petitioner
being eligible was issued interview call letter containing a disclaimer to the effect that mere
participation in interview would not create right or semblance of right ---Petitio ner had
approached High Court after two years of his interview without explaining delay ---Grant of
relief under Art.199 of the Constitution would depend on existence of a fundamental or legal
right of a person and its infringement ---Person invoking such ju risdiction would have to establish
that he was legally entitled to relief prayed for under any provision of law, rules or regulations ---
Petitioner had no locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court for having
failed to establish any su ch right and its infringement by Authority ---High Court dismissed
constitutional petition, in circumstances.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan ---
Art. 199 ---Constitutional petition ---Locus standi ---Scope ---Grant of relief under Art.199 of the
Constitution w ould depend on existence of a fundamental or legal right of petitioner and its
infringement ---Petitioner invoking such jurisdiction would have to establish that he was legally
entitled to relief prayed for under any provision of law, rules or regulations.
Zahid Mugeem Ansari for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th September, 2011.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. --- The following relief has been sought by the
petitioner: --
"It is therefore, prayed that the non issua nce of appointment letter of petitioner being
discriminatory, arbitrary is violative of principle of justice. Thus as consequence the respondent
No.3 may kindly be directed to issue the appointment letter of petitioner in the interest of
justice."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that after being interviewed he, along with some other
candidates, were declared qualified for the post of Assistant Lineman, however, due to demise of
Mr. Kazim Ali, the then Director, Human Resources Admn, Quetta Electric Su pply Company
Limited, the appointment letters were withheld so that the persons of their choice could be
appointed instead.
After having heard the contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the
considered view that the claim o f the petitioner to be declared qualified is not only a tall claim
but tall enough that it creates serious doubt about its genuineness, as the learned counsel failed to
show a single document regarding his participation in the interview let alone that he w as
qualified or was selected.
The record reveals that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application and
after short listing, he, being eligible, was called for interview vide interview call letter dated 16th
October, 2009, which co ntains the following disclaimer: ---
"4. Disclaimer:
(a) Issuance of Call letters for interview does not give any right to the applicants for the job in
QESCO. Their eligibility and suitability will be decided after Interview, Medical Examination
and Veri fication of Testimonials by the Selection Board.
(b) Call letters for interview have been issued to only those eligible applicants who fulfill the
prescribed criteria mentioned in the advertisement.
(c) If later at any stage it is found that any applic ant does not meet/ fulfill the requisite criteria;
either due to provision of wrong information/documents by the applicant or due to any error
occurred at the time of data entry of application in the Database, Company reserves full right to
discard such ap plicant from further consideration. No claim whatsoever in this regard will be
acceptable during and after selection."
The above disclaimer categorically states that mere participation in the interview does not create
right or semblance of right. The petit ioner lacks locus standi to invoke the constitutional
jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, almost two years have elapsed since the interview and the
delay in approaching the court has not been explained, thus the hurdle of laches comes in the
way of the pe titioner. Moreover, no law confers a right on the petitioner to be appointed by the
respondents. Any person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction has to establish that relief
sought by him is one which he is legally entitled to seek under any provision of law, rules or
regulation because the grant of any relief under Article 199 of the Constitution depends on
existence of a fundamental or legal right of a person and the infringement of such a right.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has failed to establish c any right and its infringement by
the respondents. Thus, the petition is dismissed in limine.
S.A.K./128/Q Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.