ABDUL SHAKOOR, J.---Anwar Khan, petitioner herein, through this constitutional petition has sought a declaration to the effect that the refusal of respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Chief Executive PESCO and Director General Human Resource PESCO, Peshawar to appoint the petitioner against the vacant post of Driver is illegal and without lawful authority and having no legil effect, and direction was also sought to them for his appointment against the post of Driver.
2. This Court, in view of the averments made in the instant petition, called the comments from respondents Nos.1 to 3. Today, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3. submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable against the PESCO as it is a Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and is having no statutory rules. Furthermore, petitioner has miserably failed to point out violation of any law and his constitutional right by the respondents Nos.2 an& 3 who are the relevant persons in respect of his case. Therefore, filing of the comments on behalf of the respondents would serve no useful purpose for the disposal of instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, confronted to show us as to which of petitioner's legal and constitutional right has been violated by the PESCO which triggered him to institute the instant petition against the PESCO. On this query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner was having no idea at all to satisfy the Court for its interference in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction into the alleged act of PESCO to refuse the petitioner to appoint him as Driver.
4. Undoubtedly, PESCO is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and is having no statutory rules. Therefore, in absence of violation of any statutory rules, law of Land and constitutional right of petitioner, the alleged refusal by the PESCO in appointing him as Driver would furnish no justification to this Court to issue a writ as sought for by him. In absence of violation of statutory rules, law and constitutional right of the petitioner by the PESCO, he cannot press into service the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In this background of the case of petitioner, we understand he could not out a case for the indulgence of this Court to interfere with the alleged act of PESCO of not appointing him as Driver.
5. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is having no substance tor the interference of this Court. Consequently, the same is dismissed.