2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology invited applications for various posts including the post of Manager (Sports), which is a BS-18 post. The petitioner, respondent No.2 and others applied for the post of Manager (Sports). The Scrutiny Committee formed by the University short listed four candidates, who were to be interviewed. The petitioner was placed at Sr.No.6, therefore, he was not called for interview. After interviewing the four short listed candidates, respondent No.2 was selected for the appointment. The petitioner having come to know that others have also been called for interview sought clarification from the Authority which was responded by stating that the only short listed candidates have been called for interview. The petitioner complained to the concerned Authority of the University as well as the Chancellor. Thereafter in 2007 the petitioner filed a complaint before the Ombudsman, where proceedings continued and statements on oath of the witnesses of the University were recorded. However, in the year 2011 the petitioner withdrew his complaint before the Ombudsman and filed the present petition.

2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2 lacked the requisite experience at the relevant time and the petitioner having all the requisite qualifications, as described in the advertisement, was not called for interview and this was only to benefit the respondent No.2. He further argued that after the petitioner was not called for interview, the petitioner pursued the matter with the functionaries of the University and thereafter with the Chancellor and then immediately filed a complaint before the Ombudsman. However, since no decision was given by the Ombudsman till 2011, the petitioner withdrew his complaint and filed the present petition. Therefore, the question of laches does not arise as from 2006 to 2012 he was pursuing the matter diligently. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases reported in 2005 SCMR 126, 2012 PLC 1340 and 2004 YLR 1969.

3. Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had obtained a Master Degree in the year 2002 and by 2006 he had four years' experience whereas the requirement was of five years' experience. He further contended that at the relevant time the petitioner should have approached the Court but he failed to do so and the person, who had been inducted in service, had already served five years till filing of this petition, hence this petition suffers from laches. In support of his contention of laches, he relied upon a case reported in PLD 2010 SC 679.

4. Counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, contended that the Supreme Court in the recent judgment has repatriated all those persons back to service as they were not entitled to hold such post irrespective of a number of years they served, therefore, the plea of respondent No.2 that he put in five years' service is of no legal consequence.

5. From the qualifications and experience which the petitioner had for the post of Manager (Sports), the interpretation does not appear to be correct. However, the petitioner has failed to point out any material to show that respondent No.2 did not have the requisite experience when he was selected for the appointment. It is the prerogative of the employer to set standard of selection and after selection is made from those selected persons who are qualified to be appointed then the person who, though has qualifications, cannot say that he should be selected for the appointment in place of a particular person. Nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that respondent No.2 at the relevant time did not have the requisite experience as was sought at the time of inviting applications. In absence of any material we cannot, in Constitutional jurisdiction, hold that respondent No.2 was not qualified to be appointed. Hence we dismiss this petition. JJK/M-150/K Petition dismissed.