BABER GUL Versus SOHAIL AHMAD SHEIKH
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J. ‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 9‑8‑2001 passed by learned Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of Sohail Ahmad Sheikh, D. S. P. (respondent No. l) has been accepted.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the recommendation of Balochistan Public Service Commission respondent Sohail Ahmad Sheikh was appointed as D.S.P. by means of notification dated 21‑3‑1990 whereas M/s. Babar Gul, Suleman Ali Haideri (petitioners) and one Muhammad Aslam Bhotani were appointed as D.S.Ps. on ad hoc basis w14o could not qualify the written test held by the Balochistan Public Service 'Commission and consequently the Commission vide letters dated 10‑12‑1988 and 27‑12‑1988 approached the Government for withdrawal of their appointment letters but amazingly three vacancies for the post of D.S.P. were withdrawn from the purview of the Commission and the services of petitioners and Muhammad Aslam Bhotani were ,regularized vide notifications dated 21‑8‑1990, 25‑11‑1990 and 6‑1‑1991 with immediate effect. The seniority list was issued on 1‑8‑1992 wherein respondent No. l was shown at Serial No.48 whereas the names of petitioners were at Serial Nos.51 and 61. The seniority position so assigned was accepted and thus a seniority list dated 1‑8‑1992 attained finality. The ad hoe appointments of petitioners were, however, regularized w.e.f. the date of their ad hoc appointments and the seniority list dated 1‑8‑1992 which had already attained finality was substituted with another seniority list wherein the name of respondent No‑1 was placed at Serial No.50 while petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.28 and 34. Being aggrieved respondent No.1 preferred a representation which could not be decided and meanwhile another seniority list dated 3‑1‑1995 was issued but with no substantial change in the seniority position of respondent No. 1. For redressal of his grievance respondent No. 1 approached Balochistan Service Tribunal and his appeal was accepted and case remanded vide order, dated 25‑7‑1997 for completion of mandatory formalities and issuance of final seniority list. In pursuant to said order final seniority list was issued on 1‑8‑1997 wherein respondent .No. l was shown at Serial No. 49 while the petitioners were placed at Serial Nos.23 and 26. The respondent No. l filed representation but with no avail and resultantly an appeal was filed before the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, which has been accepted, hence this petition.
3. The only contention raised by Mr. Ibadur Rehman Lodhi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners revolved around the question of limitation as according to learned Advocate Supreme Court the Balochistan Service Tribunal has wrongly condoned the period of limitation as the appeal filed by respondent No. l was time‑barred by two days. We have not been persuaded to agree with the said contention being not tenable because sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay being question of fact was within the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in case titled Ali Hasan Rizvi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1086), Muhammad Azhar Khan v. Services Tribunal, Islamabad (1976 SCMR 262), Yousaf Hussain Siddiqui v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar (1976 SCMR 268). It is well‑settled by now that once discretion condoning the delay has been exercised by Service Tribunal it can neither be interfered with nor disturbed by this Court subject to certain exceptions which are lacking in this case. If any authority is needed reference can be made to cases titled WAPDA v. Abdul Rashid Dar (1990 SCMR 1513), Sher Bahadur v. Government of N.‑W.F.P., (1990 SCMR 1519) and Zahida v. Deputy Director (1990 SCMR 1504).
4. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that in view of the chequered history of the case and little delay the learned Balochistan Service Tribunal has exercised his discretion judiciously which is neither arbitrary nor capricious and hardly calls for any interference. The learned Balochistan Service Tribunal has dilated upon all the controversial questions in a comprehensive manner after having secrutinized the entire record and relevant service laws. There is hardly any ambiguity or illegality with the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court and no exception can be taken to the conclusion, which in our considered view, has been drawn by the learned Balochistan Service Tribunal fairly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice.
6. It is worth-mentioning here at this juncture that leave to appeal to this Court is competent where the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance and in absence whereof leave to appeal may not be granted. In this regard reference cant be made to the cases reported in 1986 SCMR 1, 1982 SCMR 897, 1981 SCMR 715, PLD 1980 SC 22, PLJ 1980 SC 106, NLR 1980 Ser.51 , 1980 SCMR 721, 1980 SCMR 148, 1976 SCMR 268, 1976 SCMR 262, 1976 SCMR 311, 1990 SCMR 1446, 1990 SCMR 560, 1989 SCMR 330, 1989 SCMR 1677, 1989 SCMR 748, 1980 SCMR 876, 1987 SCMR 1354.
7. Before parting With this judgment we may point out that the petitioners should be thankful to their stars that their initial appointment as D.S.P. has not been challenged otherwise they would have been in great trouble in view of grave illegalities committed by the Government functionaries in their appointment.
8. Be as it may, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
S.A.K./M.A.K./B‑51/S
Petition dismissed.