SHAHZAD AKBAR (KHAN, J.--- This Constitutional petition is filed by Shafi-ul-Mulk wherein he has prayed that on acceptance of this amended writ petition, the respondent be directed to extend the time of joining the duty after modification of appointment order, dated 22-5-1996 in the circumstances so that the petitioner may be able to get the relief as early as possible. '
2. The short factual background for the purpose of appreciating the grievances of petitioner is incorporated as below.,
3. The Joint Director PAD-I-ADBP, who is respondent No.3 in the instant writ petition, in order to fill an existing vacancy of typist, called the petitioner for test/interview vide letter, dated 11-2-1996 as a result of application submitted by the petitioner. The date fixed for test/interview was 24-3-1996 at 9-DO a.m. At Mingora. The petitioner accordingly appeared who was put to 'test/interview which was duly qualified by him and, as such, he was selected for the post of typist. Pursuant to such selection, the respondent No.3 was said to have issued a letter of appointment NO.PAD- I(PAW)I(I48)/96/896, dated 22-5-1996. A photo copy whereof is Annexure "B" on the file. ,
4. The petitioner was impatiently waiting for receiving the appointment letter and for this purpose he would regularly ask the Illaqa Postman and would ,;;r, similarly visit the Post Office Chakdara but could not receive any such letter. He,ultimately visited the office of respondent No.6 where he learnt that the appointment letter was received by respondent No.6 on 8-8-1996 entered in the diary at Serial No.396 of the same date. Respondent No.6 informed respondentNo.3 through his letter No.RO/T.G.A./PD/9/96/539-40, dated13-8-1996 that the petitioner did not report his arrival in Regional Office or in concerned branch. Copy of this letter is Annexure "C" on the file.
5. The petitioner on getting a photo copy of appointment letter from Regional Office was told that he should approach the Head Office for the extension of time. In compliance of such direction, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 for redressing his gravamen, but respondent No.3 demanded to produce the original appointment letter of which, obviously, the petitioner was not possessive as the same had never reached him. This condition could not. Be satisfied by the petitioner as no functionary from the respondent's side cooperated with him and in this scenario respondent No.7 was appointed due to which the instant amended writ petition was filed so as to include Roidar Muhammad as respondent No. 7. Y ; ,
6. - Comments were filed by4 respondent No.3 wherein he admitted that call letter was issued to petitioner for his appearance for test and interview but he further said that the petitioner did not appear for test/interview as per result furnished by the Selection Committee, Abbottabad, the name of petitioner was not available therein. However, it was further stated by respondent No.3, that the petitioner was issued an offer letter on the basis of list received from the Prime Minister's Secretariat and not on the basis of merits. By taking such a stand, it appears that respondent No.3 was trying to shed of the ensuing responsibility from his shoulder. It is, however, strange that in para. 2 of his comments respondent NoJ has referred to result furnished by Selection Committee, Abbottabad in which the name of petitioner was not available. This respondent had himself issued letter, dated 11-2-1996 whereby petitioner was directed to appear for his test/interview at Mingora on 24-3-1996, thus, a list issued at Abbottabad has no relevance with a candidate appearing at Mingora quite a distinct Centre. It is also., noteworthy that as per stance of respondent No.3, the offer letter was issued in accordance with the list issued by the Prime Minister's Secretariat, but no such list was filed with the comments nor was produced in the Court. The letter of appointment prepared in the name of petitioner, dated 22-5-1996 was signed by respondent No.3 himself. He also stated in para.3 of his comments that the offer letters were handed over to Prime Minister's Secretariat for onward delivery to appointees and that respondent --Bank has not issued the offer letters to the petitioner itself. No document was produced to establish that the offer letters were handed over to Prime Minister's Secretariat and even if it is presumed so, then again it is not established that appointment/offer letter was issued/sent to petitioner. Thus, by analysing the stand of respondent as adopted through his comments in context of the attending circumstances, we hold that the .,land of respondent, is otios, and devoid of defendin- force.
7.The learned counsel fir petitioner contended that the petitioner carries higher qualification than that required for the post and he was selected on merits after lie was put to test and interview. On his selection he was clothed with his F, legal rights to have been appointed on the post. He further stated that the appointment letter, though prepared in his name was purposely not sent to petitioner and the same was withheld with a mala fide intention to prevent him A from availing the chance to reap the fruits of his success. This device, he said, was manufactured to accommodate respondent No.7 at the cost of petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner has invited our attention to Letter No.R01TGA/PD/9/96/539-40, dated 13-8-1996 addressed to respondent No.3 by respondent No.6 wherein it was stated that the petitioner alongwith another viz. Wahidtillah son of Zainullah have not reported for duty till then i.e. 13-8-1996 which means that till 13-8-1996 the arrival of petitioner was awaited. He further invited our attention to the appointment letter of respondent No.7. Which was issued on 11-8-1996 when the report of non-reporting for duty by petitioner was conveyed by respondent No.6 to respondent No.3. The learned counsel for petitioner urged that all these facts and circumstances are reflective of the mala fide intention of respondents and the whole things were manipulated to deprive the 'petitioner from his job to which he proved himself legally entitled.
9.On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondents defended the conduct and action of respondents and submitted that the petitioner had suffered the result of his own lethargy and lack of interest that he failed to report his 8 arrival within a month of the issue of letter of appointment and on his such failure, the respondents were justified in inducting respondent No.7 in his lieu.
10. We, however, ask the learned counsel for respondents to explain his tr. Position on two points, firstly if he could produce any document having a tendency to prove that appointment letter in the name of petitioner was issued and put to the normal course of Postal Service, as the appointment letter placed on file carries the word "Registered" giving an idea of registered postal service.
Secondly, how respondent No.7 could be appointed on 11-8-1996 when on 13-8-1996 an informative letter was issued by respondent No.6 to respondent No:3 saying that till then petitioner had not reported for duty. To these queries, the learned counsel for respondents could not help his inarticulation.
11. After having heard the rival contentions of both the parties and docimacy of relevant document and considering all the attending circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the letter of appointment was not conveyed to petitioner and the ensuing delay in reporting his arrival for resumption of duty cannot be attributed to him. In the case before us, the opposite-party failed to prove that the letter of appointment was sent to and received by the petitioner so as to saddle him with the culpable negligence.
12. In these circumstances, we feel ourselves guided by the principle of "ignorantia praesumitur ubi scientia non probatur", i.e. Ignorance is presumed where knowledge is not proved. As an ensuing effect of the above principle of law, the petitioner is benefited by a co-relative principle of "Ignorantia juris sui non praejudicat juri" i.e. Ignorance of one's right does not prejudice the right.
13. As an effect of the above discussion, this writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to extend the time of joining the duty by modifying the appointment order, dated 22-5- 1996 thereby enabling the petitioner to get the relief.