1. ' ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, J.---Since these two petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan involve common question of law and facts, therefore, we intend to dispose of them by this common order. In C.P.No,D-458 of 2008 the petitioners have prayed as under:--
(a) To declare that the petitioners stand duly selected for the training as the Tapedars and their selection by the District Selection Committee, Shikarpur cannot be questioned or nullified in any manner;
(b) To direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to join the Tapedars Training College Normal Course.
(c) To awards costs of the petition.
(d) Any other equitable relief be granted to the petitioners. Whereas in C.P.No,D-692 of 2008 the petitioner has made the following prayer:--
(a) To direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to undergo the training as Tapedars along with other candidates and on successful training they be appointed as Tapedars.
(b) To award costs of this petition.
(c) Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances.
2. ' The brief facts leading to these petitions are that the three petitioners in C.P.No,D-458 of 2008 were amongst the five selected candidates for the training at Tapedars College, Hyderabad for the year, 1998 as per recommendations of the defunct Deputy Commissioner, Shikarpur and such letter was issued by him to the Secretary, Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad vide No,IB/Estt./52 dated 5-1- 1998 (Annexure B to the petition). After getting them medically examined through RBUT Hospital, Shikarpur; the Deputy Commissioner issued such letters addressed to the Director of Settlements.
3. Survey and Land Records Sindh, Hyderabad dated 20-1-1998. However, they remained waiting for intimation about the start of the training and whenever they approached they were assured that they would be informed accordingly as soon as training commenced but no such intimation was ever received, ultimately they became over age. However, they have come to know that the respondents have again started the process of new selection for the same trainees which has compelled them to file this petition.
4. ' The respondents in their respective comments have admitted that these petitioners were selected for the training in Tapedars College for the year, 1998, but it was pleaded by the respondent No,3 that after their selection the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records Sindh, Hyderabad declared the list of successful candidates appeared in Tapedars Training College, Hyderabad vide letter No,AE/1452 dated 8-6-1998 in which the names of these petitioners were not found. A copy of such list is available at page No,23 of the record. Similarly, the EDO Revenue, Shikarpur, whereas the respondent No,3, in his comments stated that the earlier selection in which the petitioners were selected by the defunct Deputy Commissioners, Shaikarpur was cancelled by the Minister, Revenue on the ground that certain complaints in the selection were received to him. Moreover the Training College remained nonfunctional since then and after about ten years the Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad invited applications throughout the Province for the selection through I.B.A. In which 665 candidates had appeared, out of. Which, 436 were declared passed in written examination and out of them 278 candidates have been selected to undergo Tapedar's training course. It has also been mentioned that earlier there were series of complaints in process of recruitment; therefore, transparent method was adopted as a result of which selection of Tapedars has been made which would adversely affected if the petition is allowed.
5. ' Whereas in C.P.No,D-692 of 2008 the petitioner had also been selected for the same training vide letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Larkana dated 24-12-1997 but he too was not taken up as the training did not start. However when in the year, 2004 when a new advertisement was published for the same training the petitioner filed a Constitutional Petition bearing No,D-4 of 2004 but it was dismissed by this Court in limine on the ground of laches. It has been pleaded that the other three candidates of his batch and whose petitions were also dismissed in 2004 have been permitted to join the training at the said college which is going to be started with immediate effect and produced such intimation letters, therefore, he has been discriminated by the respondents and he is entitled to join the Training College. It has also been pleaded by him the Bench of High Court at Sukkur in C.P.No,D-905 of 2004 (wrongly written as 205 of 2004), have allowed different petitioners, who were selected in 1998 but not called for the training, to participate in the Tapedars Training College, Hyderabad vide order dated 20-3-2006.
6. ' The Id. A.A.-G. For the respondents did not file the comments because the same were not received from the respondents.
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and so also the learned A.A.-G. For the respondents and perused the record.
8. ' It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in petition No,D-485 of 2008 that since a Bench of this Court at Sukkur has allowed C.P.No,D-905 of 2004 on the same facts and grounds holding that the petitioners who were earlier selected to undergo the training at Tapedars College on 29-12-1997 but since the training did not start, were eligible to undergo Tapedars training at such Training College Hyderabad and would thereafter be appointed as Tapedars as per government policy because of the fact that vested right had accrued in their favour and the case of the these petitioner is the same therefore this petition is fit to be allowed. Whereas adopting these arguments the Id. Counsel in Petition No,692 of 2008 also contended that this petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents because his three Batch mates whose petitions were also dismissed with him have been permitted to undergo the training with the new trainees and referred such intimation letters in their favour by the respondent No,2 as well as such list and prayed that his petition may be allowed.
9. ' Refuting the above arguments the learned A.A.-G. Submitted that since on the same point the Constitutional Petition bearing No,D-4 of 2004 of the petitioner in petition No,692 of 2008 has already been dismissed by the Bench of this Court at Larkana vide order dated 10-12-2004, therefore, these petitions are liable to be dismissed on the point of laches and res judicata, otherwise, on account of two conflicting views of two different benches of a High Court i.e, one at Sukkur and the other at Larkana vide order dated 28-3-2006 in C.P.No,D-905 of 2004 and dated 10- 12-2004 in C.P.D-4 of 2004 respectively, the matter is to be referred to the honourable Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench on account of conflict of opinion on similar point between the two Benches of the same High Court comprising same number of Judges as held in Multi Line Associates case reported as 1995 SCM R 362.
10. ' We have carefully considered the above arguments in the light of the record.
11. At the outset it may be observed that under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan earlier judgment of equal Bench in High Court only on question of law and its interpretation is binding upon the second Bench. However a decision given in a case is meant primarily to apply to the facts of the case and can have but little weight in a case where the facts are different. Reference can be made to S. Muhammad Din and Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Director, Labour Welfare (Conciliation) Lahore Region, Lahore PLD 1968 Lah.1012.
12. ' Here from perusal of the two orders i.e, one in C.P.No,D-905 of 2004 decided by a Bench of this Court at Sukkur and the other in C.P.No,D-4 of 2004 decided by the Bench of this Court at Larkana, it appears that the facts of both the cases were quite distinguishable. As evident from the order in C.P.No,905 of 2004 the petitioners had challenged an action of selection of fresh candidates through an advertisement published in some newspaper and the petition was heard on merits and allowed on the basis of an order in an earlier Petition No,D-286 of 1998 in which similar point of selection of Tape.Dars in respect of District Khairpur Mir's, was involved and the petitioners who were selected in 1997 were allowed to join the training group of the selected Tapedars. However it was not suffering from laches. Whereas, in C.P.No,D-4 of 2004, in which same advertisement appears to have been challenged, was dismissed in limine on 10-12-2004, when the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Inayatullah Morio, relying upon an order passed in C.P. No,D-34 of 2004 had conceded to be suffering from laches, therefore the decisions in the two petitions were based upon different facts therefore it can be held that these orders are conflicting on the similar facts.
13. Coming to the merits of these two petitions in hand, in the Petition No,D-458 of 2008, the petitioners were selected in 1998 but were not called for the training till now when fresh process of selection has been completed in due course of time. As evident from the record of the other Petition No,692 of 2008 the respondents had done similar exercise in 2004 and had demanded applications for the trainees of Tapedars but these petitioners did not challenge the same as the petitioner in C.P.No,692 of 2008 did through C.P.No,4 of 2004, therefore their petition suffers from laches. Now when the respondents have completed the regular process of selection of the trainees throughout province after holding the test through I.B.A. Wherein 665 candidates appeared, out of them 278 have been finally selected, the petitioners filed their petition without disclosing the earlier selection process which was initiated by the respondents in 2004. In these circumstances the petition cannot be entertained and liable to be dismissed.
14. ' Similarly, the petitioner in C.P.No,D-692 of 2008, whose earlier Petition No,4 of 2004 for the same relief was dismissed as his Advocate had himself conceded that it was suffering from laches, is debarred from filing the present petition. His plea that the other three persons who had been selected along with him and whose petitions were also dismissed, have been called for by the respondents for the training, as per list submitted by his counsel during the arguments at serials Nos.284, 285 and 286, under the caption "Candidates of High Court of Sindh" is also not tenable, for, neither the petitioner has furnished copies of their such petitions which were said to have been dismissed along with his earlier petition nor these persons have been made party. Besides this, the list of prospective trainees produced by the learned counsel does not show that these three candidates at S.Nos.284, 285 and 286 did not qualify otherwise.
15. The upshot of the above discussion is that both the petitions cannot be entertained on account of laches and therefore, the same are dismissed in limine with all pending applications.