Jabar Riaz Khan Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 07 others

I

JUDGMENT SHEET

(Judicial Department)

W.P. No.51-B/2022.

Jabar Riaz Khan Versus Govt. of K.P and07 others

C.O.C.No.175-Bl2020.

Jabar Riaz Khan Verstu Chief Minister K.P and another rl.:N. rf

JUDGMENT

Date of hearins: L6.7.2025

Mr. Masood ur Rehman Wazit, 1 For petitioner:

Advocate.

For respondents: IvIr. Abdul Waheed Khattak, Asstt: A.G. for respondents No.l to 4.

Mr. Tajwali Khan Utmankhel, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7, through video link from Peshawar.

M(IHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI, f.- The petitioner, Jabar Riaz Khan, a pennanent resident of District Bannu, holds academic qualifications of F.A. along with diplomas in plumbing, Electrical, and Refrigeration & Air conditioning.

In response to an advertisement issued by the Director Administration/HR, KP-TEVTA (respondent No.5) for various posts, he applied for the post of Plumber (BPS-15) as advertised at serial No.11. He participated in the recruitment process conducted by NTS, where he secured 2nd position in the test, and was subsequently interviewed.

\r" However, his appointnent order was withheld on the ground of being overage by 06 years, 06 months, and 05 days. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing constitutional petition bearing W.P.No.583'812020, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 29.09.2020, by treating it as a representation and directing respondent No.2 to decide the same within 15 days. Upon alleged non- compliance, the petitioner filed C.O.C.No. 17 5-B 12020, and subsequently filed the instant constitutional petition, seeking the following relief:

"To direct respondents No.l to 7 to grant age reluration in accordance with KPK Upper Age Limit Rules, 2008 and issue the appointment order to the { petitioner for the post of Plumber."

2, In response to both the writ and contempt petitions, the respondents stated that the petitioner's case for age relaxation was forwarded to the Establishment Department through the Administrative Department for approval by the Chief Minister under the Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relamtion of upper Age Limit) Rules, 2008. However, the case was returned with the observation that KP-TEVTA is an

autonomous body and does not fatl within the ambit of the said Rules. The matter was then placed before the HR Committee of KP-TEVTA in its 17n' meeting dated l7.O6.2}tg, which approved a poticy that no age relaxation beyond 05 years would be granted' This policy was subsequently ratified by the Board of Directors of KP- TEVTA in its 14tr meeting on 13.12.20L9 and formally

U

notified through Endst: No. KP-TEVTA/HRIII/ARR/93 2(l-5) dated 24.02.2020.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was duly qualified for the post of Plumber (BPS-

15)and had successfully participated in the recruitment process conducted by the NTS, wherein he secured second position. He contended that the rejection of petitioner's candidature solely on the ground of being overage was unjustified, particularly when he had already been interviewed and found otherwise suitable. Learned counsel f furttrer submiued that the petitioner was entitled to age relo<ation under the Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 2008, which, according to him, apply across all government and semi- government institutions operating within the domain of the provincial government, including autonomous bodies like KP-TEVTA. He contended that the rejection of the petitioner's case on the basis that KP-TEVTA is an autonomous body not governed by the 2008 Rules was arbitrary and without legal justification. He furttrer argued that the post was advertised publicly, and the petitioner participated in good faith; therefore, once the recruitment process had been initiated and the petitioner had successfully passed the test and interview, a legitimate expectation had arisen in his favour. He maintained that the KP-TEVTA Age Relaxation Rules, being framed much later and notified in

v 2020, could not be given retrospective effect to exclude the petitioner, whose recruitment process began earlier. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that non-consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973, and urged that appropriate directions be issued for his appointment by granting age relaxation.

4, On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.5 to 7, opposed the petition and argued that the T petitioner, being overage by more than six years, did not qualify for appointment in terms of the relevant recruifinent policy applicable to KP-TEVTA. He contended that the Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 2008 are applicable only to civil posts under the direct administative control of the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and not to autonomous bodies such as KP-TEVTA.

5.Heard. Record Perused.

6, It is evident that KP-TEVTA being an autonomous body is governed by its own Age Relaration Rules, duly approved and notified by the Competent Authority on 24.02.2020. Under these Rules, a general age relaxation of up to 05 years is permissible. As the petitioner was overage by more than five years, he did not qualiff under the applicable framework. The petitioner's reliance on the Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit)

Rules, 2008 is misplaced. These Rules apply only to civil posts under the administrative control of the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, whereas KP-TEVTA, os an autonomous body, operates under its own recruitment policy and KP-TEVTA Age Relaration Rules. Therefore, tro illegality can be attributed to the respondents for adhering to their own statutory rules.

7.Furthermore, the post of Plumber was eventually filled by respondent No.8, Fida Hussain Khan, who was fully qualified and within the prescribed age limit. Thus, the -f essential condition for considering further age rela:ration, i.e., non-availability of a suitable candidate within age, did not exist. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner remained inactive after the disposal of his previous writ petition and failed to seek an appropriate remedy for alleged non- compliance within reasonable time. The instant writ petition, therefore, suffers from laches, which remain unexplained and unjustified, particularly when the recruitment process has concluded and the appointment has been made.

8.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is barred by laches and is devoid of merit. No vested right accrued in favour of the petitioner who was overage, and the appointment has already been validly made in favour of a suitable candidate within the age bracket. The action of the respondents is thus found to be in consonance with the

applicable legal framework. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

9.As regards C.O.C. No.175-B12020, it may be noted that this Court, vide order dated 29.09.2020, had only treated the previous writ petition as a representation and directed its decision in accordance with law. No conclusive or final judgment was passed on merits that could be said to have been violated. Hence, no case of contempt is made out, and the contempt petition also stands dismissed.

Announced.

Dt:16.7.2025 Imran/* lfl*

IADGE

rUDGE

(D.B)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice MuhammadTariq Afridi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

qIANNED

I )