2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

LAL JAN KHATTAK J.

Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ from this Court declaring recommendations of recruitment of the private respondents Nos.6 and 7 as Assistant Sub-Inspector against the General Public quota reserved for D.I.Khan, to be null and void, ultra vires and contrary to law and Constitution. The petitioner has further prayed that the official respondents be directed to recommend the petitioner in place of the respondents No.6 and 7 for their appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspector against the quota reserved for the General Public.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission vide advertisement No.4/2008 dated 8-7-2008 invited applications from eligible candidates for their appointments against 208 posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors BPS-9. Out of the total 208 posts 119 posts were reserved for General Public while rest of 89 were reserved for Head Constables and Constables already working in the police department having a qualification of graduation from a recognized university.

3. According to the advertisement, out of 115 posts reserved for General Public 6 were allocated for D.I.Khan range whereas from the quota reserved for in-service constables and Head Constables, 5 posts out of 89 were allocated to D.I.Khan range.

4. Petitioner's case is that he applied for his appointment against 115 posts reserved for General Public from D.1.Khan range. He was called firstly for written test on 12-5-2009 and then for interview on 11-10-2010. He, as per his version, qualified both the stages of recruitment.

5. Petitioner averred in his writ petition that after conducting the selection process official respondents recommended the private respondents Nos.6 and 7 for their appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspector against the quota reserved for the General Public inspite of the fact that they were already working in the police department as constables.

6. Petitioner is aggrieved of such recommendations of the respondents Nos.6 and 7 on the ground that being already working in the police department they were not entitled to be recommended against the quota reserved for General Public and hence their recommendation is illegal and without lawful authority.

7. Comments were called for from the respondents which were so submitted wherein the official respondents took the plea that the respondents Nos.6 and 7 have legally been recommended for their appointment against the quota reserved for General Public and that there is no illegality in such recommendation.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned recommendation of the respondents Nos.6 and 7 is violative upon the rights of the petitioner because being police employees such respondents could only be considered against the quota reserved for in-service employees and not against the quota reserved for the General Public. The learned counsel contended that the impugned recommendation has usurped the legitimate expectancy of due rights of the petitioner.

9. As against the above, learned A.A.-G. appearing for the official respondents and learned counsel for the private respondents contended that the petition is misconceived; that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person; that the respondents Nos.6 and 7 have rightly been considered against the General Public.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. Though out of 208 posts 119 were reserved for General Public and the rest 89 for the in-service Police Constables and Head-Constables. But from the entire record we found no condition which could prohibit the in-service Constables and Head-Constables from applying against the reserved posts for General Public. Counsel for the petitioner was asked time and again to pin point any barring clause or condition either in the advertisement or in the prescribed rules which bars or restricts the in-service police employees from applying against open quota but he was unable to point out any conditionality to this effect. Perusal of General Condition No.(iv) in the advertisement indicates that Government/Semi Government/Autonomous/Semi Autonomous Bodies employees may apply direct but their departmental permission certificates should reach within 30 days of the closing date. This general condition postulates that in-service employees can apply for a post falling in any quota which is much available to them.

12. Perusal of the record shows that while applying against the General public quota neither the respondents Nos.6 and 7 intruded into the open quota nor any right of the petitioner has been violated upon.

13. In the advertisement 89 posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector were reserved for in-service graduate Head Constables and Constables. In order to avail this quota criteria laid down was that the in-service Head Constable and Constable must be a graduate from a recognized university. Plea taken on behalf of the respondent No.6 was that he is not graduate and is possessed with educational qualification of F.Sc. only. So, on this premise, he was not entitled to apply against the quota reserved for in-service police Constables and Head-Constables. Therefore, his application against the General quota is very legal and not suffering from any legal infirmity.

14. In addition to the above, respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 with their para-wise comments have annexed a merit list in which the present petitioner is not only below in merit than the respondents Nos.6 and 7 but has been declared failed. So on this score alone the petitioner cannot be recommended for his appointment to the advertised post as he is not an aggrieved person.

15. For the above discussion, we do not found any merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. JJK/601/P Petition dismissed.