MIRZA VIQAS RAUF , J.--- The instant petition is filed with the following prayer:--- "It is therefore, respectfully prayer that instant writ petition may very' kindly be accepted and impugned termination letter/order dated 2nd December , 2010 may very graciously be declared illegal in the interest of justice.
It is further prayed that the respondents may very graciously be directed to restore the services of the petitioner being as regular employee of National College of Arts, Rawalpindi in the interest of justice.
Any other relief, which, this Honourable Court deem appropriate according to law, justice and equity , may also be granted".
The 'above referred prayer clause emanates from the facts that the petitioner was recruited as "Studio Attendant"
(BPS-0l) on contract basis in respondent college vide letter No. NCA/Rawalpindi/0 9/402 dated 28th August, 2009 upto 30th January , 2010. As per contents of the petition, upon satisfactory service of the petitioner , he was regularized by the respondents vide notification dated 23rd September , 2010. It is the grievance of the petitioner that afterwards upon allegations of absence from duty on 15th September , 2009 and 19th September , 2009, he was terminated from service without adopting due process of law vide impugned letter No. NCA/R WP/10/501 dated 2nd December , 2010 against which he also filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 but the same is pending, hence this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Since through instant petition, the petitioner seeks restoration of service, as he was terminated on 2nd December , 2010, so at the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the question of laches as a hurdle in the way of instant petition. He added that the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 3, which is still pending but it is observed that there is no proof to this effect that the appeal was ever routed or reached to the respondents.
3. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length; I have perused the record.
4. There is no cavil that no time frame is provided for filing the constitutional petition but at the same time invoking of constitutional jurisdiction cannot be made dependent upon the whims of the parties. A party being desirous of seeking protection of his rights, has to approach the Court within reasonable time. In the case of "Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others Vs. Tan veer Ur Rehman and others " (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 676) it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court, of Pakistan that reasonable time for filing of constitutional petition is ninety days. The same view was also adopted by this Court in the case of "Mian Aurangzeb Noor Vs. Rent Controller Lahore and another" (2012 CLC 1729 ).
5. It is apparent from the record that petitioner has lasted almost ten years to approach this Court and during integral period much water has passed under the bridges. The petitioner is supposed to explain the delay in filing the constitutional petition. Though question of laches cannot be equated with the hurdle of limitation as there are different yardsticks for computing the limitation but as already observed that invoking of constitutional jurisdiction cannot be made dependent upon the whims of the parties. The exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary with the court which is also dependent upon the conduct of the parties. The resort to constitutional mandate can only be made on the basis of principles of equity .
6. Law is well settled that equity favors the vigilant and not the indolent. The constitutional jurisdiction is not, meant to wait for a litigant, who after awakening from deep slumber force the Court to issue a writ of his choice. Thus without touching the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner remained indolent to prosecute his cause whereas the 'equity favors the vigilant. The constitutional jurisdiction as contemplated under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islam ic Republic of 'Pakistan, 1973 is a discr etionary jurisdiction, - which can only be exercised for the advancement of ends of justice and for curbing the unconstitutional act. While relying upon the cases of "Civil Aviation Authority through Director General and 3 others Vs. Mir Zulfi qar Ali and another " (2016 SCMR 183) and "Muhammad Din Vs. Abdul Ghani and another " (2012 SCMR 1004 ) this petition is hereby dismissed in limine, being suf fer with laches.