Limitation

--- Jurisdictional defect --- Scope --- An order declining to entertain a matter on limitation does not amount to an affirmation of the impugned order on merits, nor does it cure an inherent jurisdictional defect, if any, in the original proceedings.

--- R. 11-A --- Appointment on deceased/invalidated quota --- Impact of minority on limitation period --- Scope --- Petitioner challenged the different orders passed by High Court in different constitutional petitions vis-à-vis the right of employment on the strength and pursuit of deceased quota in terms of rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 --- The petitioner contended that the High Court disregarded the plain language and cut-off dates of the deceased quota policy; furthermore, pursuant to Supreme Court precedent, the underlying rule is now unconstitutional, rendering such appointments legally untenable --- Validity --- The substratum of erstwhile rule 11-A expounded that when a civil servant died while in service, or is declared invalidated or incapacitated, one of his children or, as the case may be, his spouse if his children are minor, shall be provided job, but the predominant condition was to apply within a period of two years of death or declaration of invalidity or incapacity of a civil servant --- Petitioner fervently avowed that the High Court in all impugned orders disregarded the definite date to adjudge whether the legal heirs of deceased civil servants and/or sons/daughters of invalidated or incapacitated civil servants applied for the job within the cut-off date mentioned in rule 11-A --- However, he could not point out any instance within the realm or dominion of the erstwhile rule that since the children of deceased, invalidated or incapacitated civil servants were minor at the time when the job opportunity matured, therefore, under the beneficial provision, the spouse of such civil servant was accommodated or provided the job and if this was not done then what were the reasons?; it was not even disclosed as an effective defense that the job was offered but the opportunity was not availed --- The record reflects that many minors after attaining maturity within the cut-off date applied for the job and were accommodated by the High Court --- If commonsensical and serviceable interpretation is made, then the aforesaid rule has not created any bar and obviously, if the widow was not accommodated for any reason, then neither the right to apply by a minor after attaining maturity is stifled nor he could be blamed if at the time of death of his father, he was minor especially in the state of affairs when his mother i.e. widow of deceased was not accommodated for a job consistent with the aforesaid rule --- Leave to appeal was refused.