Muhammad Riaz Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education, Peshawar, etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

BANNU BENCH

(Judicial Department)

CR No.244-812020

Muhammad Riaz Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education, Peshawar, etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 21.04.2025

F-or oetitioner(s): Mr. Masood-ur-Rehman Wazir Advocate

F'or respondent(s): Mr. Naiib Ullah. A.A.G.

,l€******

MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI. J.- This revision petition calls into question the legality of the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2020, passed by the District Judge, Bannu, whereby, he dismissed appeal of the petitioner and maintained the judgment and decree dated 21.05.20\9, rendered by the Civil Judge-IX, Bannu, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim / suit seeking appointment under 25Yo quota for denied candidates.

2.The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner, claiming to be a highly qualified candidate, applied for the post of Primary School Teacher (PST) advertised by the respondent-department. After participating in the test and interview, the petitioner was

dropped from the recruitment process, while candidates with comparatively lower merit were appointed for the only reason that the petitioner had acquired his Primary Teaching Certificate (PTC) from Allama Iqbal Open University (AIO[D, Islamabad. According to the policy then in vogue, preference was to be given to candidates holding PTC from Government Elementary Schools, Colleges, or Institutions over those from AIOU, Islamabad. This policy was challenged before this Court in writ petitions, culminating in the landmark judgment 1 of a Full Bench of this Court in Babar Elahi and others v.

Director of Education and others (WP No.374l98), decided on 20.05.2000, wherein the said policy was declared discriminatory and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. The said decision was also upheld by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, in Writ Petition No.75l2003, this Court directed the Government that 25o/o of available vacancies be allocated for those who were denied appointments solely on the basis of holding a PTC from AIOU, Islamabad. These 25Yo seats were to be filled based on a separate merit list amongst the denied candidates. The petitioner averred that despite the aforesaid judgment, the respondent-department ignored his candidature and appointed lower merit candidates,

v including Jahangir, Abdul Malik, Shoukat, Zarin, Asmat Ullah, and Mumtaz. It is further averred that the petitioner appeared before the departmental selection committee on numerous occasions, but was repeatedly ignored, with the last cause of action arising on 08.05.2017, when he was last ignored.

3.The respondents were summoned. They appeared and contested the suit by submitting a written statement.

After recording of evidence and hearing arguments, the /t Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2019. The Appellate Court upheld this decision vide its judgment and decree dated 16.07.2020.

Hence, this revision petition.

4.Arguments heard. Record perused.

5.The decisive question which needs to be determined is whether the petitioner qualified as a denied candidate or otherwise. Before this question is addressed, it would be pertinent to mention that denied candidates were those who, despite falling within the orbit of selection, were denied appointment solely on the ground of holding a PTC from AIOU. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to substantiate that he was amongst those who rnerited appointment, but was wrongly denied

w appointment due to the aforesaid policy. However, the petitioner failed to produce any substantive evidence to show that he fell within the category of denied candidates. Though, his name appears at Serial No.38 of the interview list (Ex.PW-112), however, mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the interview list is not sufficient to establish that he had secured a position within the orbit of selection.

6.The record further reveals that pursuant to the earlier judgments, contempt of Court petitions were filed, where arL inquiry was initiated, culminating in the preparation of a list comprising 59 denied candidates The petitioner's name does not appear in the said list.

7.The record funher reveals that a list was prepared by the respondent-department, and an opportunity of filing appeals was afforded to the denied candidates, with 22.08.2006 as the last date for submission of appeals.

Subsequently, the appeals filed by the candidates were decided on 24.08.2006. The denied candidates were interviewed on 26.07.2006. The petitioner's name was not mentioned in the interview list. If at all the petitioner had, in fact, any case, he would have filed the suit within six years after the aforesaid process was completed. Nevertheless, the petitioner did not do so, rather he

V

instituted the suit in the year 2018, which was hopelessly time barred as per Article 120 of the Limitation Act,

8.In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly reached the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to bring his case within the parameters of denied candidates.

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments. The impugned findings are well reasoned and grounded in law and facts.

Therefore, no interference is called for. Consequently, this petition, being without any substance, is hereby dismissed.

Announced

(Ghafoor Zaman)

JUDGE

(S.8.) Hon'ble Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi