2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

LAL JAN KHATTAK J.

Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of Writ Petition No.14-D of 2014, Writ Petition No.21-D of 2014, Writ Petition No.42-D of 2014 and Writ Petition No.77-D of 2014 as common question of law and facts is involved in all the writ petitions.

2. Petitioners through the instant writ petitions have challenged the selection criteria introduced by the Government of Khyber Pakhunkhwa for recruitment of teaching cadre staff in BPS-12 to 15 on the ground that the same is violative of their rights already conferred upon them through the recruitment process which was initiated by the respondents in the past pursuant to the recruitment policy of 2011.

3. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondents on 19-1-2012 the petitioners and hundred others applied for their selection against different teaching cadre posts. They submitted their application forms along with their testimonials whereafter the respondents according to the policy in vogue prepared a tentative merit list wherein all the candidates were given their respective positions. However, before completing the recruitment process the Government changed the policy of 2011 through another policy which was challenged by some candidates in writ petitions before this court but their petitions were dismissed. Thereafter the Government once again introduced an other policy/criteria on 20th December, 2013 whereunder the recruitment process for the selection of different teaching cadre staff will be conducted through National Testing Service (NTS). Apart from conducting the selection process through NTS, basic criteria for the teaching posts was also changed.

4. Para-wise comments were called for from the respondents which were so filed wherein the new selection criteria was defended with vehemence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondents on 19-1-2012 the petitioners applied for their appointments to different teaching posts and the respondents after completing the prescribed process prepared a tentative merit list wherein the candidates figuring therein were to be selected and thus the petitioners and hundred others who were positioned in the merit list had earned vested rights for their appointments. It was argued that the new selection criteria is prospective in its application and it should not be stretched to the case of the petitioners who have earned a legitimate expectancy and right for their recruitments against the applied for posts.

6. As against the above learned A.A.-G. contended that no vested rights have been accrued to the petitioners by mere advertisement and submitting application forms. He further submitted that the impugned selection criteria is in accordance with law and in the larger public interest.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.A.-G. and also gone through the record of the case.

8. Pivotal point in all the writ petitions is whether the new selection criteria introduced by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on 20th December, 2013 is applicable to the cases of the writ petitioners who have already applied for different teaching cadre posts pursuant to an advertisement published on 19-1-2012 and who have undergone through some selection process in accordance with the recruitment policy of 2011.

9. No doubt the petitioners had applied for their appointments against different posts pursuant to the advertisement referred above and the department had prepared a tentative merit lists of the eligible candidates but mere publishing an advertisement in newspaper and submission of application forms pursuant thereto will not confer a vested right on a candidate because the Government has the authority to amend or substitute an existing selection criteria by a new one for the betterment and in the larger interest of its citizen which has so been done through the impugned selection criteria. The next question is whether the ibid criteria is prospective in its application or it can wrap up the earlier selection process initiated by the respondents through advertisement dated 19-1-2012.

10. In our estimation the already conducted recruitment process which was initiated pursuant to the ibid advertisement cannot be saved from the application of the impugned selection criteria. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported in 1997 SCMR 1043 that:

"It is evident from the above quoted extract that by now it is a well-established principle of law that the rules applicable and the conditions required to be specified are those which are in force on the date of appointment and not which were obtaining earlier i.e. at the time of inviting applications etc." In another judgment reported in 1999 SCMR 1524, their Lordships held as under:

"The law has since then been well established that the rules applicable and the conditions required to be satisfied on the date of appointment are to be taken into consideration and not what were the requirements at an earlier date."

11. The above judgments have been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported in 2013 SCMR 264.

12. For the above discussion, we have reached to a conclusion that the petitioners have made out no case for issuing the desired writ, therefore, the writ petitions being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed. JJK/125/P Petition dismissed.