' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J. This petition was disposed of along with seven other petitions vide judgment dated 04.3.2016 in the following terms.
"23. As a result of above discussion the petitions are dismissed, however, the respondents are directed to ensure transparency in the appointment process without any favoritism or consideration other than merits. All the petitioners having qualification commensurate to the positions advertised in the newspapers may also apply and the respondents are directed to consider their applications strictly on merits. The Controlling Authority will also make sure not only the appointment of Chairman of Boards, the Secretary and Controller of Examination will also be made through Search Committee's recommendation to maintain transparency . "
2. Three petitioners had challenged the judgment of this court in the honorable Supreme Court but vide order dated 17.3.2016 passed in Civil Petitions Nos.190-K, 191-K and 195-K/2016, the apex court refused to grant leave so for all intent and purpose, the judgment passed by this court has attained finality.
3. The present petitioner in his petition had challenged the advertisement published by the Secretary to Chief Minister of Sindh for Universities and Boards, Government of Sindh for inviting applications for the position of Secretary and Controller of Examination in the different Boards of Education. The fundamental challenge rather the claim of the petitioner was that by virtue of his seniority, educational qualification and in accordance with the Rules of the Board he is entitled to be promoted permanently as Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Hyderabad. The petitioner was performing his duties as Deputy Controller Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Hyderabad vide notification dated 13.10.2014 but he was also assigned additional charge of vacant post of the Controller of Examination (BISE) Hyderabad as an interim arrangement with effect from 14th October, 2014 till further orders. The petitioner had challenged the advertisement for regular appointment of Controller of Examination on the premise that being Deputy Controller of Examination he has a vested right to be promoted as Controller of Examination without any competitive process as according to his believe and assertion, this post was to he filled by promotion and not through direct recruitment or induction.
4. After hearing all the parties including the petitioner's counsel, petitions were dismissed with certain directions as mentioned in Paragraph-23 of the judgment. (the judgment was authored by one of us Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J). However on 10.3.2016, the petitioner changed his counsel and filed this Review Application under Order XLVII, Rule-1, C.P.C. Read with Section 114 of C.P.C. He has prayed to this court to review the judgment dated 04.3.2016 to the extent of observation that controlling authority will make appointment of Secretary Controller of Examination of various Boards through search committee.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of review application argued that the post of Secretary Board of Controller of Examination do not fall within the purview of Search Committee as these appointments are to be made by Appointment Committees duly 'constituted by the Controlling Authority under the Sindh Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1972. The Regulation-V, of the First Regulation relating to the terms of members of Appointment Committee holds statutory force under Section 28 of the 1972 Ordinance. The Appointment Committee consists of eminent persons nominated by the Controlling Authority. He further argued that the respondent No,2 has constituted Appointment Committee and interview letters were issued but after the judgment of this court, the interviews for the post o Secretary and Controller of Examination have been postponed. Learned counsel concluded that the judgment to the extent of observation impugned through this review, application suffers from legal infirmity and error apparent on the face of record, therefore the judgment may be reviewed or modified to the aforesaid extent.
6. The Section Officer (Boards), Universities and Board Department, Government of Sindh has filed counter affidavit to this review application who states that while constituting Search Committee, the post of Secretary and or Controller of Examination were not included in the Notification. He also invited our attention towards appointment .Committee exists in the Board in view of First Regulation, however through this counter affidavit nothing has been expressly stated or pointed out regarding any legal infirmity or alleged error apparent on the face of the record.
7. On the contrary, the learned A.A.G argued that in view of the judgment passed by this court and to comply with the directions in order to bring in the appointment process more transparent and competitive, the Government is bound to act accordingly. He further argued that petitioner has no right to file review application who may be a candidate for the post but he cannot choose the process or manner of appointment by his own. It is not in his domain to decide what would be the correct process of selection or appointment either by the search committee or through appointment committee. He further argued that the judgment passed by this court has already been upheld by the apex court and at present the judgment passed by this court has been merged in the judgment of apex court so at this stage this court has no jurisdiction to pass any order for review of earlier findings.
8. Heard the learned counsel. In the judgment we have dilated upon almost all issues raised before us and after detailed examination and appreciation of law and facts, the judgment was passed.
However we would like to recapitulate that under Section 14 of the Sindh Boards of .Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1972, it is clearly provided under Subsection (2), that the Chairman, Secretary, Controller of Examinations and Audit officer shall be whole time officers and shall be appointed by the Controlling Authority on such terms and conditions as may be determined by it. Initially when the petitioners had challenged the advertisements for inviting applications and the constitution and or formation of Search Committee, the learned A.A.G. Had vehemently argued that in order, to make the process more transparent and competitive, the Search Committee has been formatted/constituted for the fair selection of deserving candidates which was not being done in past. At that juncture, one of the learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that why the domain of the such committee is confined to the appointment of Chairman alone and why the competitive process and transparency is not being maintained in the appointment of Secretary and Controller of Examination which are also key post and it is evident that this appointment is also to be made under Section 14 by the Controlling Authority. Since under the law it is the dominion of Controlling Authority to appoint the Chairman, Secretary, Controller of Examination and the Audit Officer which four posts are specifically mentioned under Subsection (2) of Section 14, therefore, the court reached to the