1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---In all the above petitions common question is involved as all the petitioners have prayed that they may be appointed as A.S.I. In Sindh Police.
2. ' The facts necessary for disposal of above petitions are that Deputy Inspector General of Police Larkana invited applicants for appointment of constables and Assistant Sub-Inspector vide advertisement published in daily 'Jung' Karachi dated 4-5-1995. All the petitioners have applied for the post of A.S.-I. And have cleared physical test and were asked to appear in written test. All the petitioners have claimed that they have also cleared the written test as well as interview/viva voco and their names appeared in the final merits list but the said list was kept secret and persons of choice have been appointed ignoring the merit list.
3. ' Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio submits that the petitioners were ignored and the appointments were made in violation of the Police Rules, 1934 and the persons who were not qualified were appointed. He further submits that the petitioners were discriminated.
4. ' Mr. Aftab Ahmed Gorar, advocate submits that the persons who were appointed were not qualified and were appointed against the merit list and the appointments of those who were not qualified, is against the specific provisions of the Constitution.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Saleem Jessar states that the appointments were made contrary to law and rules and the respondents have acted malafidely and without lawful authority in appointing those who names were not appearing in the merit list.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners is C.P. No,102/2007 has relied upon the following reported cases:--
(1) Government of Sindh v. Abdul Jabbar 2004 SCM R 639.
(2) S.A. Jameel v. Secretary Government of Punjab 2005 SCM R 126.
7. ' A question was put to the learned counsel regarding the long delay in filing the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners state that number of petitions were filed which were allowed by the learned Benches of Sukkur Bench and Larkana Circuit and the order were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They also submit that since the petitioners were approaching the different authorities and they kept them on hopes the laches will not be applicable. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio also submit that the judgment of the D.Bs are binding and for taking contrary view the matter has to be referred to larger Bench.
8. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before us.
9. ' The advertisements for appointments were made in 1995. The last date for filing of application was 14-5-1995. The dates for physical test were from 16-5-1995 to 25-5-1995, the date for written test was 28-5-1995 and the dates for oral test were 5-6-1995 to 7-6-1995. All the petitioners claimed that they have cleared the written test and were called for interview/viva voce and have also cleared the interview/viva voce. In support of their claim they failed to produce any document.
10. In the petitions the petitioners have stated that they were approaching various authorities but they were kept on hopes. The petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that they have continuously approaching the authorities for their appointment and at no point of time have abandoned their right. These petitions are filed after about 12 years from the date of advertisement. We are conscious of the fact that laches alone is not sufficient to dismiss the petitions if the petitioners have otherwise a good case on merits. In absence of a bar of limitation, the period within which such remedy is to be sought is to be reasonable one and element of due diligence is to be kept in mind. The important fact is that delay should never be such as to generate a belief or situation of abandonment of the right because, then, vested rights come into operation and cannot be deviated from. Question of laches in petitions is always considered in the light of conduct of the person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. The petitioners have to explain the 'reasons for not approaching the Court within reasonable time and in absence of any cogent explanation, the interference can be refused on the ground of laches.
11. ' The petitioners have stated that they have cleared all tests but have failed to produce any documents to show that they have cleared interview/viva voce and have been recommended for appointment and in absence of any proof in this regard they are not entitled for appointments. The other question is that the appointments were to be made in the year 1995 from amongst the persons who were aged between 18 to 28 years. If the ages of petitioners were treated as 18 years in 1995 after lapse of 12 years all of them have crossed the upper limit of 28 years and are not eligible for appointment.
12. ' We have examined the reported case in C.P. No,D-273 of 1999 authored by Mr. Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi (as he then was) and found that question of laches was not urged.. The petition was mainly decided in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the respondents failed to produce the merit list and by drawing adverse presumption in terms of Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the petition was allowed. In other petitions filed before Larkana Circuit, the petitions were allowed by a Bench in which one of us namely Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi, J was a member. It was held that since merit list was not produced, legitimate legal presumption under Article 129(g) of Qanun- e-Shahadat would be that respondents are withholding the list and had it been produced the same would have been unfavourable to them. Regarding laches it was held that Question of laches is to be examined on equitable principle for the reason that a discretionary. Relief in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is always granted in the name of equitable relief, if equity leans in favour of petitioner the discretion is to be exercised in their favour. In the case reported as Government of Sindh v. Abdul Jabbar (supra) it was held that the petitioners were recommended by the Selection Committee, however, because of political pressure some other persons were appointed. This is not the case in hand. Neither the petitioners have claimed that they were recommended by the Selection Board nor any proof to this effect has been produced. In the reported case of S.A. Jameel (supra) it was held that if Courts come to the conclusion that equity leans in favour of petitioner, the Courts should exercise discretion in favour of such party. However, if the Courts find that party invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court is guilty of contumacious lethargy, inaction, laxity or gross negligence in the prosecution of a cause for enforcement of right, the Court would be justified in non-suiting such person on the premise of laches. The question of laches was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various pronouncement. In the case of Masooda Begum v. Government of Punjab PLD 2003 SC 90, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the laches operate in equity and in case of laches, the dictates of justice and equity are to be weighed as the legitimate rights cannot be denied on the ground of laches unless it is found that it will cause injustice to the opposite party but, a person can be non-suited on the basis of laches if due to his negligence, rights were treated in favour of opposite party. In this case all the petitioners alleged that they have fulfilled all the requirements of appointment in 1995 but they remain silent till 2007 the date of filing of the petition. The petitioners have failed to offer any explanation and justify their 12 years' long silence notwithstanding the fact that age factor is one of the requirement of the job. The petitioners have themselves created a situation of abandonment of their right.
13. Furthermore the petitioners are guilty of contumacious lethargy, inaction, laxity and gross negligence in the prosecution of a cause for enforcement of their rights. From the fact of the case, it is also apparent that the petitioners were not diligent in safeguarding their interest and by their lapse a right has been created in favour of the respondents and the other persons who were appointed in place of petitioners (who are not before us) and at this stage after lapse of twelve years it will not be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the basis of advertisement published in the year 1995 as the direction will hamper the working of the respondents. On merits, also we find that no case for appointment has been made out as the petitioners have failed to establish that they have cleared the interview/viva voice examination and were recommended for appointment of A.S.I.
14. ' As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the D.B. Judgment is binding upon another D.B. Is concerned, in fact there is no cavil with this settled principles of law.
15. The question is whether we are deviating from the view of earlier decisions. In our view, we are not deviating from the earlier view in not condoning the laches as the petitioners due to their own conduct have not justified their long silence and inaction on their part. All the petitioners have claimed that they were approaching the authorities from time to time but no correspondence/document has been placed on record except in C.P. No,D-94/2007 one letter dated 14-11-1996 addressed to D.I.G. Larkana, has been produced which is not sufficient to condone the long delay.
16. ' By short order dated 20-3-2007, we have dismissed the petitions and above are the reasons of the short orders. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.