' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for the post of Junior Instructor (Commerce) pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspapers. According to him as per the merit list, which had been displayed he was entitled to be appointed but the appointment letter was not issued due to imposition of ban on recruitments dated 22-2-1997. He filed W.P. No,14763 of 1997, which however was withdrawn by him . After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 20-4-2004 in C.A. No,493 of 2000 to C.A. No,498 of 2000 he approached the respondent/ department for relief but has been declined the same.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he should be given the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in view of Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi and others (2005 SCM R 499); whereas the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab relies upon Pir Bakhsh represented by his legal heirs and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others (PLD 1987 SC 145) to contend that having withdrawn the writ petition he is no more entitled to re-agitate the matter.
3. The respective contentions have been considered. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had filed W.P. No,14763/1997 before this Court but had withdrawn the same voluntarily. His conduct shows his acquiescence and estops him to agitate the matter on the strength of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which does not have the effect of reopening of the matters and transactions past and closed. That is the ratio of Pir Bukhsh case (supra). Even the principle stated in Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi and others (2005 SCM R 499) does not help him inasmuch as the petitioner herein had himself abandoned his remedy and reconciled with the situation. He cannot now seek reopening of the matter over again on the strength of a subsequent judgment, which undoubtedly operates prospectively. It may be observed that distinction between persons not party to litigation and those who litigate the matter but subsequently abandon or withdraw the same has to be kept in view. To the first category the principle stated in Tara Chand case will be attracted and benefit of the judgment can be extended. However, the second category of person cannot take benefit due to their conduct i,e, acquiescence and estoppel.
' In this view of the matter , the petitioner is not entitled to relief . The petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.