' Through this writ petition, the petitioner has sought directions to respondents to appoint him as Meter Reader in the in-service Employee's Son Quota in MEPCO Multan.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner in response to proclamation issued by the respondents applied for the post of Meter. Reader in in-service Employee' Son Quota. According to advertisement 198 posts were to be filled in on merits and 50 posts were to be filled on the basis of Employee's Son Quota. The petitioner also, obtained 44 marks in NTS exam and Respondent No, 6 issued: interview letter to the petitioner in Employee's Son Quota. The petitioner appeared in the interview and got full marks. The respondents did not appoint the petitioner in Employee's Son Quota and appointed the children of employees who died during service, died after retirement and retired Employee's Son but they did not appoint any child of employees who are in service. Hence, this writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been appointed by the respondent authorities with malafide intention. Further submits that being .Son of serving employee he is entitled for appointment.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent's department submits that there were 50- seats and those were filled amongst the (a) Children of employees died during service, (b)
Children of deceased retired employees, (c) Children of retired employees and no child of serving employee has been issued offer of appointment.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a child of serving employee and respondent authorities have not issued any offer of appointment to the children of serving employees. There were 50-seats vacant and those seats were filled amongst, Children of employees died during service, Children of deceased retired employees and Children of retired employees and no child of serving employee has been issued offer of appointment. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is supported by policy decision vide office order No, AD (E.II.A) 07781/PROPRIETY RIGHTS/Chairman/21812-22461 dated 08.04.2004 and no discrimination has been made for the petitioner. It is established principle of law that policy decision cannot upset unless it is shown that same is contrary to the fundamental rights of the petitioner enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 or the same is arbitrary. This Court does not find the policy either contrary to the fundamental rights of the petitioner or suffers from arbitrariness.
7. Sequel to the above, this writ petition has no force, hence, dismissed with no order as to cost.