ABDUL KHALIQUE vs THE UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through its Registrar and 2
This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding non-appointment to the post of Assistant Controller (Examinations). The core legal question is whether mere selection by a Selection Board creates a vested right to be appointed to a post when the selection has not been approved by the competent appointing authority, and whether a petition can be maintained without joining affected appointees. The Supreme Court held that mere selection by the Selection Board does not confer a right to appointment in the absence of approval by the appointing authority or the issuance of an appointment letter, and that individual grievances without questions of public importance do not warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the petition was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that selection by a Selection Board is merely a recommendation and does not vest any enforceable right to appointment until formally approved and acted upon by the appointing authority.
- Does mere selection by a Selection Board create a vested right to be appointed to a post?
- Can a petition be maintained against non-appointment when the selection is not approved by the appointing authority?
- Does a grievance regarding individual non-appointment involve a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition is directed.Against the judgment dated 5-9-1997 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Constitutional Petition No,383-D of 1997.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that the appropriate Selection Board selected him and others for the post of Assistant Controller (Examinations) against an advertisement published in daily 'Jang' dated 5-8-1993, he was not appointed by the Appointing Authority to the said post. The same plea was raised before the High Court which was repelled after perusing the comments filed on behalf of the respondents herein. It would be advantageous to re- produce the following paragraph from the impugned judgment which read thus:- "It may be pointed out that firstly, if the petitioner was merely selected by the Selection Board, no vested right was created in favour of the petitioner. Mere selection by the Selection Board does not give him a right to maintain the present petition when his selection was not approved by the appointing authority and no letter of appointment was given to him. The petitioner has also not joined the said persons, who were given preference by the respondent and were appointed as Assistant Controllers of Examinations. No judgment can be passed against a party without affording him an opportunity of hearing."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. In our view the High Court was right in holding that mere selection by the Selection Board does not confer a right on the petitioner to be appointed to the post in dispute when his selection was not approved by the appointing authority. Even otherwise the grievance raised herein is of individual nature. No question of law of public importance involves warranting our interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The petition is also barred by 95 days and no valid ground exists for condonation.
4. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.