Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL KHALIQUE VS Respondent: UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through Registrar and 2 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Irshad Hasan Khan, Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri Title: ABDUL KHALIQUE vs UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through Registrar and 2 others Case No.: Civil Petition No,136-K of 1998 Date of Judgment:1998-11-10 Reported As: 2003 SCMR 817 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment 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
---
## Page 2
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.