2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Through this Constitutional Petition a direction has been sought to the effect that petitioner is entitled to be granted 13-marks in order to make her eligible for recruitment/appointment as Educator.

2. Briefly the facts are that the Government of Punjab, invited applications to fill the vacant posts. of Educators in Education Department with a view to eliminate absenteeism and improving the coverage and quality of education in public sector Schools in terms of Recruitment Policy (2004-05) issued through Government of the Punjab Directive bearing No.SO(S-IV) 2034 of 2004 issued on 16-8-2004, Para-4 of the said Policy lays down the eligibility criteria and according to this criteria, in addition to. the marks for academic/professional qualification, 10-marks were reserved for teaching experience as regular teacher in Government School and in para-8 of the said Policy, it was required that a candidate interested in appointment as an Educator belonging to the same Union Council where the School is situated, will be awarded extra 10-marks comparing to the other contestants/competing candidates for the same School. The petitioner claiming herself as eligible to be appointed as Educator in terms of the above mentioned Recruitment Policy submitted her application for different Schools and she was interviewed by the Selection Committee under the said Policy. However, the petitioner could not obtain the appointment under the said Policy for having failed to fulfil the eligibility criteria. The grievance of the petitioner canvassed through this petition is that despite having experience, she was not given 10-maraks in terms of para-4 of the said Policy and that she was also not given extra weightage of 10 marks on the basis of her residence in the area of requisite School, as Provided under para-8 as mentioned above.

3. Report and parawise comments were called for from D.E.O. (W.E.), Bahawalpur/respondent No.3, which have been received. According to the comments the petitioner could not be granted 10-extra marks for teaching experience, as she had not worked in any Government School as required in para-4 of the said Policy. Similarly it has been pointed out that as the petitioner is not resident of the concerned Union Council in the jurisdiction of which the School of her choice is situated, hence, she is also not entitled to claim extra 10-marks on the basis of her residence, as according to the Domicile and National Identity Card, she is resident of Bahawalpur City.

4. In view of the above factual position, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has experience of teaching in a School being run under Al-Fateh Development Organization managed by some N.G.O. hence, her teaching experience in the said School be considered equivalent to teaching in Government School. He further submits that the petitioner's forefathers are the residents of Union Council Mid Pirwah Tehsil Ahmadpur Sharqia and she is also enrolled as a Voter within the area of said Union Council, hence, this is sufficient evidence to hold her residence of the said Union Council, where the School for which she sought appointment, is situated.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and am not convinced at all. Recruitment Policy having been issued by the Government shall be deemed to have a force of law and must be construed strictly. This Court while sitting in Constitutional jurisdiction is not supposed either to sit as a policy making agency or to interpret the policy of the Government just to provide benefit to an individual. The policy having been made applicable throughout the Province laying down certain terms and conditions for the appointment of Educators and also providing procedure and criteria for appointments-irrespective of any discrimination, hence, this Court is bound to follow the same strictly unless the same is violative of any provision of Constitution or for that purpose any law or provision of law. The petitioner has admitted that she has no teaching experience in any Government School as required under the said Policy. This Court has no jurisdiction to hold that teaching experience of the petitioner in some School being run by some N.G.O. be considered or taken as equivalent to teaching in Government School as this would open a flood gate or Pandora box and on this score; the Court has to allow everybody to claim such additional marks on the basis of having teaching experience in any School even other than Government School by declaring the status of that School equivalent to Government School, which this Court cannot declare while sitting in its Constitutional jurisdiction because Constitutional. jurisdiction or for that purpose jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is meant for giving legal C protection to the Government Policy within the framework of law and not to defeat the policies of the Government by put forwarding an interpretation of its own choice. "Nisar ul Haq v. Tehsil Municipal Administration City through Nazim and 2 others (PLD 2002 Lahore 359) and "Professor Yameen-ud-Din, Advocate v. Lahore Graveyard Committee and another" 2003 CLC 1718, are referred. Similarly, the Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of a Certificate issued by the Nazim of the concerned Union Council declaring, petitioner's forefathers as residents of the said Union Council and also of the petitioner on the basis of her name being registered as a Voter in the voting list of the said Union Council. According to the advertisement published in the Newspaper besides other documents, it was also required that every candidate shall append copy of National Identity Card and Domicile Certificate, which means that the same was required for determination of residence of the candidate within the area of concerned Union Council. Hence, the Certificate issued by the Chairman of the Union Council showing petitioner's residence in the concerned Union Council is not only irrelevant but cannot be looked into at all because such Certificate cannot be equivalent to the Domicile Certificate, which is issued under Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, whereas the Certificate issued by the Nazim of the Union Council has no similar legal force nor the same has been issued under any Federal or Provincial law, hence, for that matter the respondents were right in not considering the petitioner as resident of concerned Union Council for the purpose of granting 10-additional marks under para-8 of the said Policy.

5. The upshot of above discussion is that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for obtaining additional marks on the basis of her experience as teacher in Government School as well as belonging to the D area of Union Council of requisite School. Even otherwise, both the questions are questions of fact which cannot be resolved through this Constitutional Petition. This Writ Petition has therefore, no force and the same is dismissed. H.B.T.fN-56/L Petition dismissed.