1. ' M.L. SHAHANI, J.---By this common order we are disposing of Constitution Petition No,D-1002 of 1997 filed by Mr. Shah Muhammad Abbasi and Mir Muhammad Chohan against the Province of Sindh and Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur and others in which it has been stated that the petitioners are employees and civil servants, Selection Board was constituted and through Selection Board certain promotions were recommended and they are aggrieved by such promotion and recommendation of recruitment on non-teaching staff from teaching staff.
2. Therefore, they have filed this petition and prayed for the following relief:
(A) To declare that the Selection Board appointed constituted by the respondent No,3 at his own accord is incomplete and in clear violation of the Rules and Laws and all subsequent appointments/promotions/recommendation made by the incomplete Selection Board are illegal, void ab initio, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law and is liable to be ignored/struck down and set aside.
(B) That the directions be issued to the competent Authority to take serious view of these allegations and responsible be dealt accordingly and disciplinary action be taken against them by suspending the recommendations for appointment/promotions by the incomplete Selection Board till final decision of the petition.
(C) Costs of the petition.
(D) Any other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case.
3. ' Another petition which we are disposing of through this common order is Constitution Petition No,D-1042 of 1997 filed by Mr.Jan Muhammad who is also an employee of Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur. His grievance is that the Selection Board has been constituted. They recommended the case for promotion and instead of petitioner on the 5th post, recommendations were made for appointment of Lecturer Economic Department who was an employee in the teaching cadre to be appointed in the non-teaching cadre of the University in Grade-18. According to him Selection Board can recommend the case for selection for promotion and not for the direct appointment.
4. ' Mr. S. Manzar Alam, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Constitution Petition No,1002/97 and Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.P. No,1042 of 1997 have made identical prayer and their precise contention was that the Selection Board was unlawfully constituted, therefore, their recommendations were unlawful and could not be acted upon by the University Authorities. The second contention urged by them was that the Selection Board could only recommend promotions and not for the fresh appointment as the appointments could be made only after proper publicity. They have relied on the following judgments:
(i) Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and others (1993 SCMR 1287): ' In which inter alia it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that all appointments would be made after due publicity in the area from which recruitments have to take place except in cases of Short term leave vacancies or the contingent employment.
(ii) 1996 SCMR 1349: ' Honourable Supreme Court passed an interim order in Human Rights case pertaining to the appointments.
(iii) Mrs. Shahida Zahir Abbasi and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1996 SC 632).
5. ' Wherein their lordships have reitertated time-honoured principle that there is no bar on the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 in the cases where impugned action is mala fide, without jurisdiction, or coram non judice.
6. Admittedly, petitioners are civil servants. Their grievance relates to their terms and conditions of service. In relation to the terms and conditions of civil servants it has been repeatedly held by Honourable Supreme Court as well as High Courts that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 is specifically ousted. Such is the view of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Anis Ahmed (PLD 1994 SC 539), Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1981 Karachi 290) and Mian Aman-ul-Mulk v. N.-W.F.P. Through Chief Secretary (PLD 1981 Peshawar 1).
7. ' Counsel for the petitioners stated firstly that there is no relief against Selection Board, as the Selection Board could only select person for promotion and not for appointment. Such view is not correct. Word ' select' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Vth Edition to mean "To take by preference from among others; to pick out; to cull". Some employees so recommended have been preferred from amongst others, through the process of selection. This contention so urged by the counsel for the petitioners is therefore, not tenable. Word 'term' has been defined in the same dictionary at page 1318 as "The word in a legal sense means a fixed and definite period of time which the law describes that an officer may hold an office". While word ' condition' inter alia has been defined at page 266 of the same dictionary: "They are lawful or unlawful: the former when their character is not in violation of any rule, principle, or policy of law; the latter when they are such as the law will not allow to be made.They are consistent or repugnant: the former when they are in harmony and concord with the other parts of the transaction; the latter when they contradict, annul, or neutralize the main purpose of the "Contract" Repugnant conditions are also called "insensible."
8. ' The words so defined in Article 212(1)(a) carry these meanings. Our jurisdiction therefore is clipped by the Constitutional provisions elaborately discussed by the Full Bench in the case of Abdul Bari.
9. Constitution under Article 175 sub-article (2) specifically declares that no Court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by under any law. We cannot confer upon ourselves additional jurisdiction not warranted by the Constitution or specifically ousted by the Constitution. The words employed in Article 175, sub-Article (2) are couched in negative language and therefore mandatory.
10. ' This Court has already ruled that the opening words in Article 199 "Subject to the Constitution", inter alia, mean "to be controlled by the Constitution". Since our jurisdiction is ousted by another provision of the Constitution i,e, Article 212 which controls our jurisdiction we are unable to entertain this petition. Petitioners may invoke appropriate remedy from appropriate forum. Cited cases have no applicability and we cannot exercise jurisdiction not conferred on us, as well as expressly taken away by the Constitution. for these reasons after hearing the parties these petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.