Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J.--The following relief has been sought by the petitioner: "It is therefore, prayed that the non-issuance of appointment letter of petitioner being discriminatory, arbitrary is violative of principle of justice. Thus as consequence the Respondent No, 3 may kindly be directed to issue the appointment letter of petitioner in the interest of justice."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that after being interviewed he, along with some other candidates, were declared qualified, for the post of Assistant Lineman, however, due to demise of Mr. Kazim Ali, the then Director, Human Resources Admn, Quetta Electric Supply Company Limited, the appointment letters were withheld so that the persons of their choice could be appointed instead.
3. After having heard the contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner to be declared qualified is not only a tall claim but tall enough that it creates serious doubt about its genuineness, as the learned counsel failed to show a single document regarding his participation in the interview let alone that he was qualified or was selected.
4. The record reveals that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application and after short listing, he, being eligible, was called for interview vide interview call letter dated 16th October, 2009, which contains the following b. Call letters for interview have been issued to only those eligible applicants who fulfill the prescribed criteria mentioned in the advertisement. c. If later at Any stage it is found that any applicant does not meet/fulfill the requisite criteria; either due to provision of wrong information/documents by the applicant or due to any error occurred at the time of data entry of application in the Database, Company reserves full right to discard such applicant from further consideration. No claim whatsoever in this regard will be acceptable during and after selection."
The above disclaimer categorically states that mere participation in the interview does not create right or semblance of right. The petitioner lacks locus standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, almost two years have elapsed since the interview and the delay in approaching the Court has not been explained, thus the hurdle of laches comes in the way of the petitioner. Moreover, no law confers a right on the petitioner to be appointed by the respondents.
Any person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction has to establish that relief sought by him is one which he is legally entitled to seek under any provision of law, rules or regulation because the grant of any relief under Article 199 of the Constitution depends on existence of a fundamental or legal right of a person and the infringement of such a right.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has failed to establish any right and its infringement by the respondents. Thus, the petition is dismissed in limine.