1. Today this matter was listed for hearing of Misc. Application 4965/05 whereby the petitioner had sought an interim order seeking to restrain the Respondent No. 5 from exercising the functions of EDO (Education) in the Respondent No. 3 and direct the Respondent No. 1 to restore the petitioner to that office. The application is ex facie misconceived inasmuch as under the jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto the Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner but only direct the Respondent against whom relief is sought to vacate a public office in case his appointment is found to be illegal. Moreover, it is well-settled that interim relief of the kind prayed for is not granted in such matters.
2. Nevertheless since all counsel appear to be ready to proceed on merits, we decided to hear them and finally dispose of the petition. The petitioner had relied upon, in support of his case, the terms of notification dated 29th May, 2001 issued under Rule 3(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, were by Respondent No. 5 did not appear to be qualified for promotion as District Education Officer.
3. Mr. Manzoor All Khan, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 as well as other learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that the terms of the aforesaid notification had been replaced by a subsequent notification dated November 5, 2003 which stipulated that 80% of the posts of District Education Officers (BPS-19) were to be filled through promotion of Head Teachers, Deputy District Officers (BPP-18) possessing a minimum of 12 years' experience in BPS-17 and above. In a detailed counter-affidavit, Respondent No. 5 has stated that he was initially appointed as Statistical Officer (BPS-17), in 1989 promoted as Deputy Education Officer (which post now stands re-designated as Deputy District Officer) in March, 2000, and subsequently promoted as District Officer on 02.12.2002 after having completed 12 years of service. These facts have not been denied, For the foregoing reasons we are unable to find any illegality in the appointment of the Respondent No. 5 as District Officer (Education) and would. Accordingly, dismiss this Petition.