| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2784 2016 SLD 2784 2016 PLC 115 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-3090 of 2010, Dated: 22ndJanuary, 2015. Date of hearing: 25th November, 2014.
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE, AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Sadiq Tanoli, Standing Counsel along with Atiq Ahmed, Assistant Director FPSC for
Respondent No.1.
Constitutional Petition No. D-3090 of 2010, Dated: 22ndJanuary, 2015. Date of hearing: 25th November, 2014.
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE, AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Sadiq Tanoli, Standing Counsel along with Atiq Ahmed, Assistant Director FPSC for
Respondent No.1.
DR. SUMERA TABASSUMVSSECRETARY OF FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977), S.7---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Competitive examination---Advertisement for the post of lecturer---Post vacated due to non-joining of selected candidate---Waiting list---Scope---Discrimination--- Locus standi--- Public Service Commission/ Government should re-advertise/advertise the post which had remained vacant by non-joining of selected candidates or in case of subsequent requisition in the ordinary course of time---Practice of keeping a 'waiting list' in a 'competitive examination system' was nothing but an attempt to introduce a contradictory concept---Waiting list' was maintained in a `qualifying examination' while in a `competitive examination' all vacancies were filled up in one go---When selection was made out of one 'competitive examination', it could not be bifurcated into two or more---Selection had to be one when 'competitive examination' was one and in no event it could be said that any number of selections could be made of the same `competitive examination'---Petitioner had alleged discrimination on account of the appointment of "X" in place of "Y" but he was not made party in the constitutional petition---Discriminatory treatment could not be gone through appropriately in circumstances---Petitioner's name was never placed on the alleged 'waiting list' rather she was informed that her name could not be recommended for appointment---Petitioner had failed to establish any vested right in her favour---Petitioner was a low merit candidate and was not recommended by the Public Service Commission for the advertised post---No vested right of the petitioner had been infringed---Public Service Commission had never conveyed the petitioner that she was the next candidate in the 'merit list'/'waiting list' for alternate nomination and/or she would be recommended if principal nominee did not join the post---Until and unless department did cancel the offer of appointment issued to the principal nominee and thereafter a request was made to the Public Service Commission for 'alternate nomination' till then the offer of appointment of…