ABDUL KHALIQUE vs UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through Registrar and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding non-appointment to the post of Assistant Controller (Examinations). The core legal question was whether mere selection by a Selection Board creates a vested right in favor of a candidate to demand appointment when the Appointing Authority has not approved the selection or issued an appointment letter. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that selection by a Selection Board alone does not confer a legally enforceable right to be appointed without the Appointing Authority's approval. Furthermore, the Court noted that the grievance was purely individual in nature, raised no question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and the petition was barred by limitation without valid grounds for condonation. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
- Does mere selection by a Selection Board create a vested right to be appointed to a post without approval from the Appointing Authority?
- Can a writ petition or appeal be maintained to claim an appointment where no letter of appointment was ever issued?
- Is interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution warranted in a matter involving a purely individual grievance that raises no question of law of public importance?
- 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 reproduce 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.
Cited by 1 case
- KALEEM ARSHAD KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and 6 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1558