1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2nd Division 3 3rd Division 2 If a candidate was from Rural Area additional 5 marks were allocated to him and if a candidate who was Hafiz‑e‑Quran 5 marks were allocated to him on that account. P.T.C. Teachers were allocated the following marks: 1st Division 15 2nd Division 13 3rd Division 10 He also stated that as regards SN.T. Teachers Basic Qualification was F.A. In order to determine the merit position of each candidate following marks were allocated:‑‑ Matric 1st Divisiion 22 Matric 2nd Division 21 Matric 3rd Division 15 F.A. 1st Division 23 F.A. 2nd Division 21 F.A. 3rd Division 15 B.A. 1st Division 5 B.A. 2nd Division 3 B.A. 3rd Division 2 M.A.1st Division 5 M.A. 2nd Division 2 Rural Area 5 Hafiz‑e‑Quran 5 C.T. 1st Division 15 C.T. 2nd Division 13 C.T. 3rd Division 10 He submitted that in order to avoid any chance of favouritism it was decided that no marks should be allocated for viva/interview. Keeping in view the said criteria merit position of each candidate was determined and list prepared. The appointments were made against the available posts from those who were in the said merit list. According to the merits the petitioners could not be appointed on merits here for their appointments are cancelled.

9. It is manifest that a criteria was clearly laid down known to everybody. Learned Advocate‑General submitted that even if any of the petitioners still feel that his merit position has not been determined according to the said criteria the departmental authorities are ready as stated in the parawise comments to consider their representation if made within 10 days from today and they shall have no hesitation in case representation is found to have merits to pass fresh orders. Learned Advocate‑General in support of his contention that even in these circumstances the remedy of the petitioners lies before the Service Tribunal as their only plea was that merit position had not been correctly determined, relies upon judgment reported as Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Government of Punjab and others (1995 SCMR page 1016) in which in similar circumstances regarding determination of merit position of different candidates as regards remedy before the Service Tribunal it was held as under:‑‑ "If the petitioners' appointments were in accordance with law as contended by them, termination of their services without any justifiable reason would entitle them to maintain appeals before the Service Tribunal and not a writ petition or Intra‑Court Appeal or the present petitions for leave to appeal, the Service Tribunal is competent to go into the question, whether their appointments were made in accordance with law and whether termination of their services was warranted by law in view of clear provision of Article 212 of the Constitution. In this behalf, reference may be made to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others (PLD 1994 SC 539)). We are, therefore, of the view that the present petitions for leave to appeal are misconceived. The petitioners should approach Service Tribunal. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the petitioners will now file appeals before the Tribunal, the same may be treated time‑barred. It will suffice to observe that the petitioners may file applications for condonation of delay and the learned Service Tribunal will consider above applications keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case and the factum that a large number of people are involved therein."

10. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in this judgment there is no room left to entertain any doubt that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 in these matters is barred by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution, therefore, the petitioners may seek remedy before the Service Tribunal in accordance with law after availing remedy of making representation before the departmental authorities which undertaken by the learned Advocate‑General shall be decided expeditiously.

11. For the foregoing reasons the writ petitions are hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑727/L Petitions dismissed.