CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- Both the writ petitions are disposed by one consolidated judgment having common question of law and facts. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition No.7252- S/96 arises that Dr. Muhammad Iqbal got appointment as Homeo Medical Practitioner on 30-6- 1988. On 18-3-1995 respondent No. 2 invited applications through Daily Nawa-i-Waqat for the post of Homeo Doctors in May/June. 1994. Subsequently the date for interview was also fixed for 26-3- 1995. Therefore, petitioner appeared before the Recruitment Committee and participated in the entire proceedings for selection of the said post. The petitioner alleged that he was declared at Serial No. 6 in the merit list by respondent No. 3. There were seven posts but the respondent No. 2 appointed other persons who did not figure in the merit list.
2. The brief facts of W.P. No. 7253-S/96 are that the petitioner also participated the selection of the said posts before the Recruitment Committee and alleged that he was declared at serial No. 7 in the merit list. There were seven posts of the Doctors but the respondents in violation of the merit list appointed other persons. Abdul Rahim and another applicants for the said posts filed W.P. No. 326- S/96 and W.P. No. 332-S/96 well in time which were decided by this Court vide judgment dated 25- 9-1996 and accepted the writ petitions.
3. The petitioner filed writ petition after the decision in the above- mentioned writ petitions on 28- 10-1996. The respondents filed para wise comments in response to the direction of this Court and reply of paras 9 and 10 are reproduced as under: 'Para No. 9. The interview of the petitioner was conducted on 26-3- 1995. After finalising the list the appointments of some other categories were made on 5-9-1995 such as Lady Health Visitors/Sanitary Inspectors etc. The case of HM Doctor for appointment was in process and in the meantime, all the appointments made after 5-9-1995, were cancelled by the Govt, vide Notification No. S.O.R.III/2-1-94, dated 11.10.1995. Thus no further appointments were made.
Para No. 10. Some posts of different categories including HM Doctors were advertised by the Goy.
But in the meantime Honourable Lahore High Court. Lahore, imposed ban on appointments, hence no interview and no appointments were made. However, three candidates were appointed on the order of Honourable Court. Lahore High Court. Multan Bench. Multan.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioners contended that the case of the petitioners is exactly similar on facts and law with the other consistent who filed the Writ Petition No. 326-S 96 and 332-S 96 i.e. Abdul Rahim, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency the writ petitions of the petitioners may also be accepted.
5. The leamed Addl. A.G. Contended that the petitioners did nor approach this Court immediately and therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. He further argued that subsequent events came into field, therefore, judgment of Abdul Rahim and others is not applicable. The ban was imposed by the Government and subsequently by, this Court, therefore, the respondents did not appoint them. The ban lifted by this Court but the Government did not remove the ban and the ban is still in the field. He further argued that those seats were filled up by the candidates. He further stated that petitioner Dr. Muhammad Ijaz Akhtar was on merit list at Serial No. 17 whereas other petitioners w ere at Serial No. 7. The petitioners are at liberty to file fresh applications as when the ban will be lifted by the competent Authority in response to the advertisement at that time.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. The leamed counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the unreported judgment of the contestant Abdul Rahim but it is admitted fact that the judgment of Abdul Rahim is binding between the respondents and him and the petitioners could not be benefited by that judgment, as is held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Jalal-ud-Din v. Set dement Commissioner tl%8 SCMR page 995) and the relevant observation is as follows: 'There is little force in the contention for a writ petitioner under Article 18 of the Constitution can be filed only by an aggrieved person w which contemplates that the relief granted by the Court must be in relationship to his grievance and not to grievance of any 3rd person.
7. It is admitted fact that the petitioner approached this Court after considerable delay. The power to make a declaratory judgment is discretionary, the discretion could be exercised with due care and caution, and judiciously with regard to all the circumstances of the case, therefore, I am not claimed to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners who are not vigilant to approach the Court in time. I am fortified by the judgment of Supreme Court in Haji Saif Ullah's case (PLD 1989 S.C.
166) and Khuwaja Sharif's case (PLD 1988 Lahore 725). The petitioners did not implead the necessary parties who are affected by the judgment, therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone (PLD 1992 S.C. 221).
8. In unreported judgment, the respondents failed to bring on record that ban was imposed, therefore on account of above-mentioned subsequent events, the petitioners are not entitled to get the same relief.
9. In view of the statement of the learned Addl. Advocate General, petitioner Dr. Muhammad Ijaz has no grievance, as he was on merit list at S. No. 17. As there were only seven seats.
10. In view of the above discussion, these w rit petitions are disposed of w uh the above observations.