2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

SHAHID MUBEEN, J.

Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has challenged the vires of letter dated 14.05.2014 issued by respondent No.2 whereby his application for recruitment as Forest Ranger has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner in response to an advertisement got published by respondent No.2/Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission applied for the post of Forest Ranger. He participated in written test and was declared successful placing his name at Sr. No.20 of the merit list. Thereafter he was called for interview on 14.05.2014 but after a detailed interview he was rejected for recruitment on the said post vide impugned letter dated 14.05.2014 on the ground that he does not possess requisite qualification as per adult service rules and his degree is also not recognized. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has the requisite qualification as required by respondent No.2 in a consolidated advertisement No.05 of 2014. Further submits that petitioner's degree of Bachelor of Science (Honors) Agriculture (Range Management and Forestry) has been declared equal to M.Sc. Forestry by the Higher Education Commission/ respondent No.3. Therefore, the impugned letter is illegal and has been issued without any lawful authority.

4. On the other hand, learned AAG submits that the candidates having degree in Forestry from a recognized University/Forest Institute were eligible to be appointed for the advertised post whereas the degree obtained by the petitioner is not according to required qualification of respondent No.2 as per advertisement. Learned AAG has objected to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that Province of Punjab has not been impleaded as party to this petition which is violation of Article 174 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 79 of the C.P.C. In this regard he has relied on a case reported as Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department and others v. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi and others (2010 SCMR 115). Further submits that the writ petition is not competent keeping in view Regulation 33 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2000 wherein a remedy of review is provided to the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AAG and have gone through the record.

6. It will not be out of place to mention here that it is the prerogative of respondent/department to prescribe a specific qualification for the advertised post. Respondent No. 2 has got advertised the post in accordance with the rules framed through Notification No.SOR-III-1-32/71 dated 18.01.1984 wherein the qualification for the post of Forest Ranger BPS-16 has been described as "degree in Forestry from the recognized University/Forest Institute". Respondent No.2 has not sought equivalence of the required qualification. Had it been the intention of respondent No.2 it would have been stated in the advertisement for the said post as it has been mentioned for the post of Assistant BPS-14 in Disaster Management Department/PMDA wherein the qualification for the said post is "Degree from a recognized university or equivalent qualification". Reliance in this regard is placed on a case reported as Dr. Muhammad Hussain v. Principal, Ayub Medical College and another (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 143). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "Government is competent to enhance, alter or amend prescribed qualification for a particular post which cannot be objected to as qualification for a particular post cannot be kept unchanged for decades to safeguard the interest of a particular incumbent and day to day changes in every walk of life, scientific developments and increasing technical know-how cannot be ignored". This judgment was further followed in a case Shazia v. Government of Balochistan in C.P No.738 of 2012. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on a case reported as Mst. Shugafta v. Chairman Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad and 2 others [2015 PLC (C.S.) 819] wherein it has been held that the Government had prerogative to prescribe the requisite qualification for a particular post and the eligibility of a candidate was to be determined in accordance with the advertisement for the said post keeping in view the stipulated requirements. Further reference in this regard can be made to a case reported as Mitha Khan Umrani v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary National Assembly, Islamabad [2014 PLC (C.S.) 571]. Further reliance can be placed on a case reported as Abdul Latif and others v. Government of Punjab and others [2013 PLC (C.S.) 975]. In another case reported as Rao Muhammad Aftab v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Schools, Education, Lahore and 3 others [2014 PLC (C.S.) 39] this Court has held that "had the intention of concerned department been to appoint candidates having qualification 'equivalent' to F.Sc. it would have stipulated the same in the advertisement. Non-mentioning of such fact in the advertisement meant that only those candidates were required who had (specific) qualification as laid down in the advertisement".

7. The objection of learned AAG that this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not impleaded province of Punjab as party in this petition, has a force. In this regard reliance is placed on a case reported as Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department and others v. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi and others (2010 SCMR 115). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-- "No suit can be filed against Provincial Government without impleading the Province as a party and the procedural precondition is mandatory in nature and no relief can be sought without its strict compliance and suit would not be maintainable".

8. An efficacious alternate remedy has been provided to the petitioner under Regulation 33 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2000 which reads as under:- "

33. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Regulations, all orders relating to initial scrutiny, eligibility and short-listing which adversely affect a candidate may be assailed by an applicant for review within 10 days from the date of passing of such order. However, any delay in the matter may be condoned for plausible reasons. The review petition shall be disposed of (expeditiously) by the Member in charge and in his absence by a Member nominated by the chairman, and where considered desirable after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A copy of the final order shall be communicated to the petitioner. The decision of the Commission in that regard shall be final". Generally the remedy of review is not considered as an efficacious remedy, however from the bare perusal of Regulation No.33 it is reflected that review petition is not heard by the same authority who has passed the impugned order rather the same is heard and decided by the Member Incharge or in his absence the Member nominated by the Chairman. In this case the impugned order has been passed by the Office Incharge/Secretary, therefore, the review petition shall be heard as stated above by the officer who is higher in rank than the officer who has passed the impugned order i.e. Office Incharge.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned letter dated 14.05.2014 issued by respondent No.2 which can be interfered by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

10. Sequel to the above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ZC/J-15/L Petition dismissed.