' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---These five civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment dated 16-3-1999 passed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh whereby Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-164 to D-169 of 1998, filed by the petitioner, were dismissed in limine.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Sindh Public Service Commission, through an advertisement in daily Dawn dated 20-1-1997, invited applications for three posts of Assistant Professor Surgery stating therein that one post was for the candidates domiciled in Urban Sindh and two seats for the candidates domiciled in Rural Sindh. The petitioners as well as other candidates submitted their applications in pursuance of the advertisement. But subsequently, on 22-2-1998, the Commission readvertised the posts in daily Dawn for six posts, two posts for urban Sindh and four posts for Rural Sindh, with a statement that those who had earlier applied for the posts need not re-apply. All the candidates were interviewed from 20th to 29th July, 1998 and after the interview, respondents 4 to 9 were recommended for the posts.
3. The petitioners" case is that the posts were re-advertised with a view to accommodate the recommended respondents who had their links with highly influential political persons, though the petitioners were more suitable than those (respondents 4 to 9) recommended by respondent No,1, Sindh Public Service Commission. Under these circumstances, the petitioners approached the High Court and prayed for declaration that the recommendations of respondents No,1 in respect of respondents 4 to 9 were without lawful authority, nullity in the eyes of law and liable to be ignored and that respondent Government of Sindh had no authority in law to notify appointment of respondents 4 to 9 as Assistant Professors Surgery and further that respondent Government of Sindh be directed to recall the orders of appointment and posting of respondents 4 to 9.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
5. Mere fact that the posts of Assistant Professor Surgery were re- advertised would not by itself be sufficient to hold that it was done mala fidely to accommodate respondents 4 to 9 considering that the number of posts was increased from 3 to 6 and further that only one candidate (respondent No,9) out of many who had applied in response to the re-advertisement was recommended while the rest five candidates were recommended who had applied in pursuance to the first advertisement. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the eligibility of respondents 4 to 9 for the advertised posts, but lie contends that the petitioners were better suited for the posts. Learned counsel has not been able to show that respondent No,1 has acted dishonestly, malafidely and unlawfully, consequently, opinion/recommendations of respondent No, 1/Sindh Public Service Commission for respondents Nos.4 to 9 with regard to their fitness and suitability falling within the competence of respondent No,1 in the circumstances could not be interfered with in absence of good reasons.
6. Under the circumstances, we do not find substance and merit in these petitions, consequently leave to appeal is refused and the petitions are dismissed.