2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(2) B.Sc. (U.O.B.) (3) B.E. (Industrial Engineer). The petitioner was interviewed wherein he secured highest marks but he was refused to be appointed against the vacancy for which he was candidate as he was declared unqualified for want of experience of one year in Agro Training. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the refusal of department to appoint him against the vacancy applied by him preferred this petition, notice of which was issued to Secretary Education. Mr. Nasir Khan Kasi, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner. came up with argument that petitioner attended workshop practice during this first year at Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, Karachi which met the requirement of one year Agro training. It was further contended that the application of petitioner was entertained and he was interviewed showing that he fulfilled the requirement. The learned counsel claimed that petitioner was selected and his appointment order was also prepared but subsequently the same was withdrawn. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the department for issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner. Mr. Sultan Mehmood, Assistant Advocate‑General appearing for respondent controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that petitioner though is highly qualified but lacked the required experience, therefore, he was declared unqualified despite of the fact that he secured highest marks in the interview, therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed against the vacancy. It was further submitted that once petitioner was declared unqualified there was no question of issuance of any appointment order. The petitioner was stated to be making applications to department which received due attention but to no benefit to the petitioner as he was not qualified for appointment. It was argued that any observation trade on the application of the petitioner cannot meet the requirement. It was lastly stated that petitioner being not eligible cannot be considered for appointment. The preliminary arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered in the light of the documents filed with the petition and the Rules. The entitlement for appointment against the vacancy of English Teacher (Technical) is claimed by the petitioner on the ground that his application was entertained and he was interviewed wherein he secured highest marks. On the other hand the required qualification for appointment was F.Sc. with one year Agro Tech. Training. Although the educational qualification of the petitioner was much more than the required educational qualification but he did not possess the experience. The petitioner made an attempt to cover the experience by the workshop practice at Dawood College of Engineering and Technology with a certificate dated 23rd August 2002 issued by Principal Government Agro Technical Training Centre Quetta which read as following:‑‑ "Certified that I, have gone through the Detailed marks certificate of Mr. Bismillah S/o Mohibullah D.E. Industrial Engineer. I have found that the subjects taught in B.E. Industrial Engineering are quite related to those subjects which are being taught in this training centre." The certificate on the one hand cannot be deemed to be a certificate showing that the petitioner was having experience of one year in Agro Tech. Training Secondly the same also does not state that the workshop practice was equal to the one year Agro Tech. Training. Besides nothing has been brought on record of this Court that the Principal Government Agro Technical Teachers Training Center was competent to issue the certificate. Ignoring all above the certificate was issued on 23rd August, 2002 whereas the interview was held on 6‑9‑2000. Hence for the reasons discussed hereinabove tire certificate is found to be of no benefit to the petitioner and we are of the opinion that the workshop practice cannot replace the required experience of one year training in Agro Tech., therefore, the petitioner was not possessing the required experience. His application was liable to be rejected and he was not to be allowed to take the interview test, but such f omission on the part of the officials of responded does not create any right in favour of petitioner. Similarly any subsequent official correspondence made on the application of petitioner cannot entitle him for appointment in violation of the rules and required conditions for appointment. We feel constrained to observe that petitioner himself created the entire situation putting himself as well as the respondent‑department to undergo the unnecessary exercise by applying for the post despite being not eligible for the same and, thereafter, pursuing the same on unjustified grounds. Keeping in view the conditionality as contained in the advertisement and the required eligibility for the post of English Teacher ('technical) we hold that petitioner is not entitled to the relief as no legal or Constitutional right of petition has been infringed.

6. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition in limine. Q.M.H./150/Q Petition dismissed.