2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD QAIM JAN KHAN, J.

The Constitutional petition in hand is directed against the order of respondent No-4 dated 20-3-2002 regarding the recommendation of petitioner to the Government for appointment as Assistant' Director/Deputy D.E.O. (now E.D.O.)/Institute Vice President (Principal) (BPS-18) in the Education Department and also against letter No.9253 dated 27-3-2002, vide which his representation has been rejected and instead respondents 6 to 12 have been appointed.

2. It is alleged that respondent No.1 advertised a number of vacancies including eleven vacancies of male Assistant Directors/Deputy D.E. O./Institute Vide President (Principal) in, Government Elementary Colleges in Education Department of N.-W.F.P. and FATA. The advertisement was published in the Daily Frontier Post on 26-8-2000. Petitioner being qualified- for the said purpose, applied for participation in the test (interview). He participated on 14-2-2002 in the requisite test (interview). The petitioner had availed eleven months study leave for M.Ed. course from 1-12-1990. to 31-10-1991; that the petitioner has got 4 years 6 months and 18 days service experience at his credit, the detail is given in the petition; that respondent No.4 vide letter No.9014 dated 20-3-2002 informed the petitioner that he has qualified interview, but regretted the recommendation of petitioner to the Government for appointment because of limitation of vacancies; that respondents 6 to 12 have been recommenced for appointment although having less qualifications and the detail is as under:-- I. Respondent No.6 56 marks II. Respondent No.7 56 " III. Respondent No.8 57 " IV. Respondent No.9 57 " V. Respondent No.10 57 " VI. Respondent No.11 57 " VII. Respondent No.12 57 " That petitioner visited the office of respondent No.4, where he learnt that respondent No.4 has declared total score of petitioner as 54 marks instead of 57 marks, mis-calculating the total of allocated marks and allocating 4 marks instead of 5 marks as against his experience of 4 years 6 months and 18 days, the. detail is as under:

1. Interview 33 33

2. Academic Score 15 15

3. Distinction 04 04

4. Experience 04 04 Total 54 56 That the petitioner is entitled to 5 marks for his service experience because one mark is allocated per annum for experience and that the net service experience of petitioner comes to 4 years 6 months and 18 days, which being more than 50% of the year, is to be considered as 5 years. Moreover, respondent No.4 has considered the period of eleven months for the study period of petitioner as one complete year, thus by applying the one and the same yard stick the period of more than 6 months is also to be considered as one complete year for the purpose of allocation of experience marks and thus in this way the total score of the petitioner which comes to 57 marks makes him entitled to be recommended. The petitioner preferred a representation to the Chairman/respondent No.5 on 15-3-2002, which was turned down vide letter No.9253 dated 27-3-2002, hence this petition.

3. Pre-admission notice was issued to respondents 3 and 4 to appear before the Court alongwith the relevant record. Respondents 3 to 5 appeared through learned DAG on pre-admission notice and submitted their comments.

4. We have heard the learned counsel at length arid have scrutinized the record. It is apparent from the record that respondents 6 to 12 had better merit position than the petitioner. The total score of the petitioner is 56 marks while respondents 6 and 7 though at the same level, yet had higher marks in interview, so were placed senior to him in accordance with policy decision No.21(3) which reads as follows:-- "When two or more than two candidates have secured equal marks in the aggregate, the candidate who has secured higher marks in the interview shall be marked senior. In case the marks in aggregate and also the marks in the interview are the same, the candidate who is older in age shall be placed senior to the one who is younger. " The perusal of the record shows that the rest of the respondents had aggregate marks rather higher than the petitioner and the break up of the marks of respondents 6 to 12 are as follows:-- S. No. Respondents/ Petitioner Academic Marks Distinction Marks Add: Qualification Marks Experience Marks Inter- view Marks Total Marks

1. Respdt:6 16 - - 06 34 56

2. Respdt:7 16 - - 04 36 56

3. Respdt:8 18 - - 06 33 57

4. Respdt:9 18 - 04 03 34 59

5. Respdt:10 17 - - 06 34 57

6. Respdt:11 16 - 02 03 36 57

7. Respdt:12 19 - _ _ 38 57

8. Petitioner 15 02 02 04 33 56

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner streneously argued that the period of more than 6 months should be counted as one year but according to the policy of the Government the broken period of less than one year, whatever it tray be, is not countable per policy decision No.19(11) and the policy is uniform for all the candidates and the petitioner has not been discriminated in this regard as the other respondents had also additional experience for more than 6/7 months but that too was ignored, thus no discrimination occurred. The representation of the petitioner has been duly considered by the department but in the light of the policy decision his representation could not be accepted. The petitioner has been treated equally and no discrimination is apparent qua the other respondents (6 to 12). As the marks of the petitioner has been correctly calculated for experience and has been awarded 4 marks for which he was entitled and that no discrimination has been made to the petitioner qua respondents 6 to 12, therefore, the petition in hand is without any substance and is thus dismissed in limine alongwith C.M. Q.M.H./636/P Petition dismissed.