2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KH. MUHAMMAD NASIM, J.

The captioned petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the consolidated judgment of the High Court, dated 13.06.2024, passed in Writ Petitions Nos.49 and 50 of 2020.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Public Service Commission (PSC) advertised 43 posts of Assistant Professor (BPS-18), including 8 posts of Assistant Professor (Urdu) on open merit, vide advertisement No.2/2019. After conducting the written test, the PSC shortlisted 17 candidates for interview. Respondent No. 5, herein, submitted an application to the PSC, claiming, therein, that she had obtained higher marks in the written test than some other candidates who were shortlisted for interview but she was not called for interview. Upon consideration of her application, the PSC permitted her to participate in the interview. Following the completion of the interview process, respondent No.5 was declared successful as per handout issued on 25.12.2019 and her appointment order was subsequently issued on 17.10.2020. The petitioners challenged the handout dated 25.12.2019 and the appointment order of the contesting respondent dated 17.10.2020 by filing separate writ petitions before the High Court, on various grounds. However, through the impugned consolidated judgment, the learned High Court dismissed both the writ petitions. Consequently, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking leave to appeal.

3. Sardar M. R. Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is against law and the record of the case, rendering it unsustainable in the eye of law. He further argued that the PSC, inter alia, had advertised 8 posts of Assistant Professor (Urdu) and after the written examination, shortlisted 17 candidates for interview, including the petitioners, herein. Thereafter, the contesting respondent, in collusion with the official respondents, submitted an application to have her name included in the candidates short listed for interview. The official respondents, while allowing the said application, permitted her to participate in the interview and after completion of the selection process, declared her successful candidate and subsequently issued her appointment order. The learned Advocate alleged that these actions were taken in clear disregard of the PSC's own policy on shortlisting the candidates for interviews, and the entire process appeared to have been manipulated to accommodate the contesting respondent. He further challenged the legitimacy of the respondent's claim of having secured 79 marks in the written test, pointing out that this claim was contradicted by the record produced before the High Court. Despite these irregularities, the learned High Court opt to dismiss the petitioners' writ petitions, a decision that, in his view, cannot be justified under law. Lastly, the learned Advocate, prayed for granting of leave to appeal in the case, to rectify the illegality committed by the learned High Court.

4. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Chaudhary, the learned Advocate, representing the private respondent, contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is legally sound and does not warrant any interference by this Court. He submitted that in the written test, the contesting respondent had obtained higher marks as compared to the candidates short listed for interview. As a result, she approached the PSC, and upon reviewing the record, the PSC rectified this oversight. The learned High Court also summoned the relevant record from the PSC, which confirmed that the contesting respondent had a higher merit position than the candidates short listed for interview. Giving these circumstances, the petitioners lack the locus standi to challenge her appointment. He further argued that the learned High Court committed no illegality in passing the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and thoroughly examined the record along with the impugned judgment. The core issue in this case revolves around the handout issued by the PSC, dated 25.12.2019, and the subsequent notification dated 17.10.2020, whereby the contesting respondent was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) BPS-18. The record shows that the PSC had advertised 43 posts of Assistant Professor (BPS-18), including 8 posts of Assistant Professor (Urdu) on open merit, through advertisement No.2/2019. Following the written test, the PSC shortlisted 17 candidates for interview. The contesting respondent then approached the PSC, asserting therein, that she had passed the written test and obtained higher marks than some other candidates who shortlisted for interview. Acting on her application, the PSC allowed her to participate in the interview. Upon the conclusion of the selection process, she was appointed against one of the posts of Assistant Professor (Urdu). The petitioners, herein, challenged the PSC's handout and the contesting respondent's appointment by filing separate writ petitions before the High Court. However, through the impugned consolidated judgment, the learned High Court dismissed both the writ petitions.

6. The contention of the learned Advocate, representing the petitioners is that initially, 17 candidates were shortlisted for interview and the name of the contesting respondent was not amongst them. According to him, the contesting respondent's participation in the interview and subsequent issuance of her appointment order, following her application, is a manipulation in the selection process. In response to this allegation, for our own satisfaction, we directed for production of the original record from the PSC. Upon careful examination of the award list and calculating the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, academic qualifications, and the interview, it appears that the contesting respondent secured an aggregate of 66.96 marks, while the candidates ranked at 16th and 17th in the list i.e. the petitioners, herein, obtained 61.24 and 58.61 marks, respectively. Given that the contesting respondent had a higher merit position as compared to the candidates short listed for interview, thus, her inclusion in the interview and subsequent appointment against one of the posts, appears to be in accordance with merit. The impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is perfectly legal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, regarding alleged manipulation by the PSC, is devoid of substance and is accordingly hereby repelled.

7. It is an admitted position that initially in the series of short-listed candidates for interview, the name of the contesting respondent, despite obtaining higher marks in the written test as compared to some of the short-listed candidates, was not included. During the course of arguments when this position was confronted to the Director and Secretary PSC, they admitted that the failure not to include the name of private respondent in the shortlisted candidates was due to an error on the part of the PSC. It may be observed here, that such like mistakes are concerning, particularly for an institution like the PSC, which is entrusted with the critical responsibility of ensuring merit-based selection for public service positions. Errors of such like nature, not only compromise the integrity of the recruitment process but also erode public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the PSC. Moreover, these lapses lead to an increase in litigation, as affected individuals seek to challenge the validity of the selection process, as is the situation in the present case. This situation underscores the urgent need for the PSC to implement robust measures to prevent such errors in the future. Strengthening its procedures will help in restoring public trust and upholding the PSC's role as a reliable and impartial authority in public service recruitment. Maintaining the integrity of PSC is essential to ensure that merit and transparency remain the cornerstone of public sector appointments. With the above observation, leave in this petition is refused. No order as to costs. MQ/18/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.