This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeks a direction to the Province of Punjab through its Home Secretary, to appoint the petitioner as Honorary Special Magistrate, Kasur.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner allegedly submitted an application to the Chief Minister, Punjab, for his appointment as Honorary Special Magistrate at Kasur and the Chief Minister allegedly approved his appointment on 1-9-1990. Thereafter, another order was allegedly passed by the Chief Minister on 19-10-1990 wherein the appointment of the petitioner as Special Magistrate, Kasur was again approved under his signature.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Punjab Government is not complying with the directions issued by the Chief Minister and on the contrary Mr. Ali Arif, Additional Secretary to the Chief Minister, Punjab, informed the Home Secretary vide his letter No.SO (Dev) OT-14/90/49511, dated 14-11-1990 that the Chief Minister has desired that the case of the petitioner be examined.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that grave injustice has been done to the petitioner for not appointing him as Honorary Special Magistrate, Kasur notwithstanding repeated orders passed by the Chief Minister in his- favour.
5. On 14-5-1991, Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate --General appeared on behalf of the Punjab Government and took the plea that the allegations leveled in the writ petition were false and the recommendations purported to be make by the Chief Minister are forged. He was, therefore, directed to file an affidavit in support of his submission. In consequence, Mr. Ali-- Arif, Additional Secretary to the. Chief Minister, Punjab, has filed an affidavit dated 22-5-1991, which reads thus:-- "(1)Mr. Shaukat Ali (appellant) had presented a photo copy of his application for his appointment as Honorary Special Magistrate, Kasur on which the Chief Minister, Punjab had apparently been pleased to record "Allowed". The application was marked to the Home Secretary. Since only a photo copy was presented and the application was marked to Home Secretary, the Chief Minister's Secretariat referred the case to Home Secretary for examination and report vide letter No. SO (D)OT-14/90/49511, dated 14-11-1990.
(2) Subsequently, Mr. Shaukat Ali presented another application (in original) on the same subject on which Chief Minister had allegedly recorded the following orders:-- "Approved appointment of Special Magistrate, Kasur". This application was marked to Secretary to Chief Minister. It was apparent from the application that the orders so recorded as well as the marking to Secretary to Chief Minister did not tally with the signatures of the Chief Minister. It has been confirmed by the Chief Minister, Punjab that the order so recorded as well as marking to Secretary to Chief Minister was not in his handwriting except for his signatures which were only genuine. The case was referred to SHO Race Course Police Station for further investigation vide letter No. SO (D) (OT)-14/90-49511, .dated 9-12-1990 which is still under investigation."
6. A bare perusal of the affidavit of the Additional Secretary of the Chief Minister would show that the Chief Minister has not denied the genuineness of his signatures on the application of the petitioner. The onus is, therefore, on the Government to show that the Chief Minister merely signed the application without recording any order on it and what was the rationale foci mere signatures.
The learned Advocate-General is unable to explain the circumstances under which the Chief Minister signed the application. However, in the interest of justice by order dated 6-11-1991 the case was adjourned at the instance of Mr. Farooq Bedar learned Additional Advocate-General to file a supplementary affidavit by Mr. Ali Arif to clarify the circumstances under which the application was signed by the Chief Minister but no supplementary affidavit has been filed. Furthermore, the mere fact that a case has been registered against the petitioner and the matter is still under police investigation is not sufficient to presume that the appointment of the petitioner was not genuine.
7. Be that as it may, it is not a fit case for the exercise of my discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction, in that, according to the learned counsel of the petitioner, the post of the Honorary Magistrate was sanctioned for a period of one year, which has since expired on 30-6-1991 before it was given effect to.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.