IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
Civil Petition No.70/2014 
(On appeal from the judgment 
dated 5.11.2013 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in 
W.P.No.1643-P of 2012) 
 
 
Tariq Khan   
…Petitioner   
VERSUS 
 
Govt. of KPK thr. Secy. Irrigation, Mardan & others  
….Respondents 
 
 
For the petitioner: 
 
Mr. Amjad Ali, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
 
For the respondents: 
 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
04.03.2014 
 
ORDER 
 
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.—  
 
CMA 762/2014:  
 
Through this CMA, the petitioner seeks the permission of the 
Court to place on record, additional documents, which is allowed. 
Hence the same is disposed of.  
 
Civil Petition No.70/2014 
 
2. 
  
Leave to appeal has been sought through this petition 
against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Peshawar High 
Court, 
Peshawar 
dated 
5.11.2013 
dismissing 
Writ 
Petitions 
No.1643-P/2012, 2639-P/2012 and 380-P/2013 because identical 
CP 70 of 2014 
2
question of law and the facts were involved in all the three 
petitions.  
3. 
  
Arguments of the learned ASC heard and available 
record perused.  
 
4. 
  
The official respondents advertised 10 vacant posts, to 
be filled up as Revenue Inspectors (BPS-10). The petitioner being 
eligible, applied and participated in the test conducted by the 
respondents and secured 66 marks out of 100 marks, thus, stood 
first, however, in the meanwhile the Government of KPK, Irrigation 
Department re-structured the Irrigation Circle Mardan, probably, for 
administrative convenience and efficient service delivery. Mardan 
Irrigation Circle was made independent, whereas, Sawabi Circle was 
created besides the Malakand Circle.  
 
5. 
  
Respondent No.2 re-advertised 22 vacant posts of 
Revenue Inspector, while rest of the 10 vacant posts of Revenue 
Inspectors were independently advertised by the Sawabi Irrigation 
Circle.  
 
6. 
  
The petitioner questioned the cancellation of the earlier 
result of the test conducted for the 10 vacant posts, the re-
advertisement of the posts and re-conducting the test for the same 
through W.P.No.2639-P/2012 and W.P.No.380-P/2013. However, 
without pursuing the remedy so chosen by himself, he willingly 
participated in the test and interview, freshly held. This time, the 
petitioner could not secure any position entitling him to be 
appointed against any vacant post, so advertised. Thus, he filed 
W.P.No.1643-P/2012, challenging the entire process subsequently 
CP 70 of 2014 
3
conducted by the official respondents, on the basis of allegation 
that it was done on political consideration; was unfair and his 
accrued right was disturbed in an unwarranted manner. However, 
after dealing with each and every aspect of the case and the 
contentions of the petitioner, the Division Bench of the Peshawar 
High Court, Peshawar dismissed all the three writ petitions as no 
element of malafide, ill will or any consideration other than merits, 
was established.  
 
7. 
  
We have gone through the impugned judgment and we 
are of the firm view that learned Judges of the Division Bench of the 
Peshawar High Court have taken the correct view of the subject 
matter, elaborately dealing with each and every aspect of the case 
and that once the petitioner has participated in the subsequent test 
and interview, through such conduct, he forfeited his right to 
pursue the earlier writ petitions, referred to above, which were still 
pending disposal before the High Court.  
 
8. 
  
No element of discrimination has been found by us 
because it was not only the petitioner but all the successful 
candidates, who passed the earlier test, result of which was 
cancelled by the official respondents, have not shown any grievance 
against that process, probably because of the government’s 
notification, re-structuring Mardan Irrigation Circle, dividing it into 
three Divisions.  
 
9. 
  
No solid evidence or material has been brought on 
record to establish that the petitioner was given discriminatory 
treatment or any deliberate attempt was made by the official 
CP 70 of 2014 
4
respondents thwarting his way to succeed in the test and the 
interview.  
10. 
  
Thus, in the absence of any such material no adverse 
inference can be drawn against the exercise carried out by the 
official respondents. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and 
leave to appeal refused.  
  
Judge  
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
Islamabad, the   
4th March, 2014 
‘Nisar’ 
 
 
 
 
Not Approved For Reporting  
