| Case ID |
2de03a22-9c66-4ca2-b875-b9577f5e15f6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-404, D-424, D-431, D-440, D-441, D-446, D-447, D |
| Decision Date |
Aug 31, 2023 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 24, 2023 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners, who alleged favoritism and nepotism in the recruitment process for the posts of Prison Constables. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. It emphasized that the selection process is best assessed by the authorities responsible for recruitment, and the court should not interfere unless there is gross negligence or mala fide intent evident in the selection committee's actions. The court upheld the validity of the selection committee's decisions, stating that merely securing higher marks in earlier stages does not guarantee a right to appointment if the interview results are not favorable. The court also noted that the petitioners did not implead the selected candidates, which would have been necessary to challenge the committee's decisions effectively. |
| Summary |
The case involves a group of petitioners challenging their disqualification from the recruitment process for Prison Constables in Sindh. They alleged favoritism and nepotism, arguing they performed better in tests yet were not selected. The Sindh High Court, however, ruled against the petitioners, stating that the selection committee's discretion is paramount and must not be interfered with by the court unless clear evidence of misconduct is presented. The decision highlights the importance of the integrity of selection processes and the need for candidates to meet all criteria to be eligible for employment. The ruling underscores the principles of fair recruitment practices and the judiciary's role in respecting the authority of administrative bodies in personnel matters. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro,
Arbab Ali Hakro
|
| Lawyers |
Deedar Ali M. Chohan,
Shabbir Ali Bozdar,
Sohail Ahmed Khoso,
Sundar Khan Chachar,
Sheeraz Fazal,
Muhammad Raza Soomro,
Achar Khan Gabol,
Farhan Ali Shaikh,
Farman Ali Rajput,
Muhammad Aslam Gadani,
Amanullah Bugti,
Abdul Naeem Pirzada,
Asadullah Arbani,
Athar Hussain Abro,
Hamid Ali Memon,
Ajeebullah Junejo
|
| Petitioners |
20 others,
ALI HASSAN
|
| Respondents |
3 others,
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Home Department, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi
|
| Citations |
2024 SLD 4304,
2024 PLC 396
|
| Other Citations |
Asif Hassan and others v. Sabir Hussain and others 2019 SCMR 1970,
Arshad Ali Tabassum v. The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2015 SCMR 112,
Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2014 SCMR 157
|
| Laws Involved |
Not available
|
| Sections |
Not available
|