' SHAH KHAWAR, J. --- Briefly, case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable in the Police Department on 26.11.1995 on the basis of school leaving certificate issued by Headmaster Government High School 'Shah Jamal in special quota of martyrs claiming that his father Shaheed Constable Habib Ullah No, 1887 was expired in police encounter in the territory of Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. Later on, a complaint was received by the SSP, D.G. Khan on 16.11.1998 alleging therein that the school leaving certificate and family claim of the petitioner, on the,basis of which he was appointed as Constable in Police Department, were fake. The DSP.
Headquarters D.G. Khan was directed to conduct an inquiry, who on 12.01.1999 submitted a detailed report stating therein that the school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government High School, Shah Jamal was found bogus. Similarly, father of the petitioner Habib Ullah was not martyred in Police encounter as the petitioner claimed at the time of appointment. Consequently, case F.I.R. No, 400/1999, dated 19.11.1999 under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan. A departmental inquiry was also held whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide order dated 01.02.1999. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption D.G. Khan vide judgment dated 09.10.2010 in the light of confessional statement of the petitioner and sentenced for 09 months and 07 days (period already undergone during the trial).
2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed departmental appeal before the authority i,e, D.I.G, Dera Ghazi Khan which was rejected vide order dated 26.10.1999. The petitioner filed revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. During the pendency of revision petition, DPO, D.G. Khan was directed to verify the school leaving certificate of the petitioner. During the inquiry, it was found that the school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government Elementary School, Chak Bohdla, District Muzaffargarh was correct. The I.G. Of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide< letter dated 09.04.2008 decided the revision petition with the direction to the petitioner to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal, if so, desires as there is provision of only one departmental appeal. The petitioner filed appeal bearing No, 1051/2008 before the learned Punjab Selyice Tribunal, Lahore, which was accepted vide judgment dated 16.02.2008 with the following observations:--- "6. For what has been discussed above, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and impugned orders are set aside. Resultantly the appellant shall be reinstated in service though department may proceed against him strictly under the relevant provisions of Punjab Police E & D Rules, 1975 and treatment of intervening period shall depend upon outcome of proceedings."
3. In compliance of the judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. DSP (Investigation), D.G. Khan conducted regular inquiry on the charges and vide inquiry report dated 09.10.2009 held the petitioner guilty. On receipt of inquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service by DPO, D.G. Khan vide office order dated 27.10.2009. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal against his dismissal before the RPO, D.G.
Khan who vide order dated 07.04.2010 dismissed the same. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 07.04.2010 before the I.G. Police Punjab was also rejected vide order dated 02.02.2011. The petitioner also filed revision petition before the learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption, D.G. Khan for recalling the judgment dated 09.10.2000 already passed. The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption turned down the same vide order dated 30.08.2010. During these proceedings, the petitioner also filed writ petition No, 10954/2010 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2011 in view of the request made by the petitioner with the direction to respondent No, 2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of their own inquiries made in respect of bogus certificate and then decide the same within a period of three months from the receipt of that order. In compliance of the order dated 20.01.2011, passed by this Court, the RPO, D.G. Khan again conducted the thorough inquiry into the matter. Finally the RPO, D.G.
Khan held that the petitioner, being a convict, cannot be reinstated into service as his claim was devoid both on facts and law and same was not acceded to.
4. The respondents were ordered to file report and parawise comments by this Court and respondent No, 2RPO, D.G. Khan submitted the same on 10.2.2014.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at length in support of his contentions and prayers made in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the following prayers have been made:--- "In view of the above, it is, therefore, humbly prayed that it may very kindly be held that law, laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as 1993 SCJ 764, is binding on all state functionaries and that of this august Court, in letter and spirit, as propounded thereby, time and again, in view of the mandate, by dint of Article 189, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
' It is also prayed that while accepting this petition, the judgment passed by Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, D.G. Khan, on 09.10.2000, may very kindly be clarified to the extent that in view of settled law, fostered by. Supreme Court of Pakistan, the conviction and sentence, awarded to the petitioner, on the allegation of presenting allegedly a bogus School Leaving Certificate, at the time of joining Police Department, having been found correct, in the inquiry proceedings, finalized by the Police Department, may be considered as no impediment in the way of his reinstatement into service, while quashing the same.
' It is also prayed that order, dated Nil, passed by respondent No, 2 (Annex-"G") may kindly be quashed and held to be without any lawful authority, being ab initio null and void, in eyes of law, being an effort to defeat ends of justice, by hook or by crook, on one pretext or the other. It is also prayed that while invoking the powers, u/s. 561-A, Cr.P.C., this august Court may grant any relief, facilitating the petitioner, to be re-instated in service, in order to meet the ends of natural justice, notwithstanding so-called orders of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, D.G. Khan, dated Nil (Annex- "G").
' It is also further prayed that any other relief, expedient in the interest of justice, may also very graciously be granted."
' In support of his contentions, the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Honourable Superior Courts of Pakistan reported as PLD 1971 Supreme Court 838 Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another 2007 SCJ 669 Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Zainab Bibi, 1997 SCM R 1635 Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Member (REV.)/CSS and others 1997 SCM R 1073 Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. And 2 others v. Saifur Rehman, 2000 SCM R 1969 Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group) and 8 others PLJ 1996 SC 215 Syed Sajjad Hussain v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others.
6. On the other hand, the learned AAG has vehemently opposed the instant writ petition contending that the judgments quoted in support of the petition have no bearing upon the facts and circumstances of this case. He also pointed out that the writ petition was not competent due to the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, according to which this Court cannot take cognizance of the matters pertaining to terms and conditions of the service of a civil servant. He contended that the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies available to him and could not get any relief. He prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned MG. The record of the case has also been minutely perused.
8. I am in agreement with the contention made by learned AAG and report/parawise comments filed by respondent No, 2, who have fully explained the facts and circumstances of this case. This-is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Police Department in the year 1995 on the basis of school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government High School, Shah Jamal and in special quota of martyrs claiming that the petitioner is son of Shaheed Constable Habib Ullah No, 1887, who was expired in the Police encounter in the territory of Police Station Ferozewala, [district Sheikhupura, which afterward revealed that as claimed by the petitioner his father Habib Ullah was not martyred in said Police encounter. As per report dated 03.01.1999 of SHO Police Station Ferozewala, one Constable Faqir Muhammad was martyred in Police encounter instead of Habib Ullah. According to record, during personal hearing before D.I.G.
D.G. Khan, the petitioner confessed that his step father was martyred in the Police encounter. In the review petition filed by the petitioner before respondent No, 1, the petitioner submitted school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government Elementary School, Bohdla, which after verification was proved to be correct. But at the time of appointment as Constable, the petitioner had relied upon a school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government High School, Shah Jamal. It is also worth noting that the prayers made in the writ petition, which have been reproduced above, are not in accordance with the law and Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
9. This Court cannot indulge in the factual controversies and that too when the petitioner has exhausted all the legal remedies available to him. Moreover, Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has placed specific bar oh the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and adjudicate the matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. The above-said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable both on facts and law and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out a case where this Court may interfere.
10. While exercising the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the powers of High Courts are not as of an Appellate Court. High Court can only exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in matters, where no factual controversy is involved and the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under this Article is very limited in its scope, it has to be used very carefully. To invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has to show that he has left with no other adequate remedy under the ordinary law of land and he is to satisfy the Court that he is really an aggrieved person and certain orders or directions of a Court, authority or tribunal need rectification. In the present case, the petitioner has availed all the remedies available to him by way of filing departmental appeals, appeal before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and even before this Court and could not make out a case where this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction may interfere.
11. As a sequel to above discussion, I do not find any force in the instant writ petition. Hence, the same' is dismissed being devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.