2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.

Briefly the facts relevant for the decision of instant writ petition are that pursuant to advertisement inviting applications for the different categories of posts including the post of Chemical Engineer, the petitioner also submitted his candidature for one of the post of Chemical Engineer in SNGPL. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he successfully appeared in NTS and then he also appeared before the interviewing committee but he has been dropped, hence, this writ petition.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been ignored merely on the basis of interview marks; no criteria for awarding interview marks had been declared or published and that he has been deprived of recruitment as his father being Chief Editor of a newspaper was highlighting the corruption of officials of SNGPL. Lastly, argued that respondents Nos.5 to 31 have been appointed as a result of favoritism and nepotism.

3. On the other hand, learned counsels representing the respondents opposed the above contentions and argued that final merit list is prepared by including the interview marks and in the final list the petitioner fell below in merit. Further argued that factual controversy cannot be resolved in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Lastly argued that respondent authorities had no ill motives against the petitioner, the persons who stood on merit have been appointed, without any element of nepotism.

4. Heard.

5. There can be no second opinion that mere clearance of written examination does not vest or create any right in favour of a candidate, so as seek its enforcement through constitutional jurisdiction of this court. Even otherwise, final merit list has been prepared on the basis of accumulative marks of the candidates, which include qualification marks, written test as well as interview marks, etc, and the petitioner is below in merit, as compared to those who have been offered appointments. It may be mentioned here that a candidate may have achieved good marks on the basis of qualification or in the written test as well, but that factor alone cannot be made basis for his selection, unless total tally of the marks in all the fields i.e. qualification, written test and the interview, etc, place such candidate on merit. In the instant case, a copy of the merit list has been placed on the file, which clearly reflects that same was prepared by computing the NTS marks, interview weightage as well as educational weightage, and as discussed above, the petitioner could not achieve the merit. It is not the case of the petitioner that any miscalculation has been made to his extent or that the selected candidates have been given excessive marks due to such miscalculation.

6. As regards the argument that no criteria for interview marks had been given in the advertisement, I am afraid once the petitioner submitted his candidature on the basis of said advertisement, it means that he accepted all the terms contained therein. At this subsequent stage when he has been ignored from selection, he cannot raise any such objection. If he was aggrieved then he must have raised such objection or challenged the same at that very moment, but no such exercise has been done in the instant case.

7. Coming to the question of bias towards the petitioner or nepotism towards the selected candidates, this is factual controversy, which cannot be resolved by this Court while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case "Muhammad Qamar v. Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority through Chairman and 3 others" (2016 PLC (C.S.) 1066).

8. For what has been discussed above, I see no merit in this writ petition and the same is therefore, dismissed. ZC/F-9/L Petition dismissed.