2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J.

The petitioner Naveed Ahmed has assailed the appointment of Zubair Ahmed and Raqeebullah, respectively the respondents Nos.4 and 5, against the post of Junior Vernacular Teacher ("JVT") in B-9 made by the Director of Education (Schools) Government of Balochistan (respondent No.2).

2. The petitioner contended that vide advertisement dated 4-12-2011 published in the Daily "Jang" Quetta applications were invited for various posts of teaching cadre in the Education Department. The said posts were stipulated to be filled on basis of weightage formula at village and Union Council level. The local/domicile candidates, who are also permanent residents of relevant village, were entitled to submit the applications. In case of non-availability of the candidates from the relevant village, the candidates from the relevant Union Council were to be preferred. The following procedure was stipulated for the determination of merit of the intended candidates: The petitioner further contended that appointment of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 is in violation of principles of natural justice and merit as he possesses higher qualification than the said respondents. He further added that though the merit list was compiled wrongly by the official respondents and respondent No.4 viz. Zubair Ahmed was awarded 51.74% marks and was placed at serial No.4 of the merit list but the respondent No.5, was placed at serial No.17 by securing 46.03% marks, and the petitioner's name appeared at serial No.9 by securing 49.16% marks but instead of petitioners, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 were appointed. He contended that inspite of compiling wrong merit list, still the petitioner secured higher percentage than respondent No.5. He further added that respondent No.5 is only intermediate with Primary Teaching Certificate ("PTC") and respondent No.4 viz. Zubair Ahmed possesses Bachelor's Degree with PTC, while he has a Master's Degree in International Relations, as well as, a Bachelor's Degree in Education (B.Ed.). He finally urged that the appointments of respondents Nos.4 and 5 be declared against the norms of natural justice and principles of merit and the official respondents be directed to appoint him according to the merit list.

3. In response to court's notice the respondents appeared and the official respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed joint para-wise comments and categorically denied the allegations levelled against them. He referred to the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner and stated that the same was obtained on 11-4-2012 whereas the last date for submission of application was 27-12-2011. The learned Additional Advocate-General contended that the appointments were made according to merit list, which was complied on basis of weightage formula, therefore, the petitioner has no case, which, requires interference by this court.

4. The respondents Nos.4 and 5 also filed their replies, wherein respondent No.4 contended that he was placed at serial No.4 of the merit list, therefore, was rightly appointed and if the merit list would have been compiled according to the contention of the petitioner then he still would have been appointed being placed at serial No.14 out of total eighteen posts. The respondent No.5 in his reply contended that the appointment was made on the basis of F.A. (Intermediate), therefore, his appointment was according to the requisite qualification and merit. However, both the private respondents failed to categorically deny the petitioner's contention.

5. We have heard the respective parties, the learned Additional Advocate-General and have also perused the record. The perusal of referred to advertisement reveals that for the post of JVT, the minimum qualification F.A./FSc. (Intermediate) with PTC was stipulated. In referred to advertisement it was further stipulated that 80% marks will be allocated for the required educational qualification i.e. Intermediate (F.A./F.Sc.), 10% marks for possessing the professional qualification and 10% additional marks were for higher educational qualification. The relevant entries of merit list in respect of petitioner and the contesting respondents, on basis whereof the appointments were made as under:

LIST OF CANDIDATES APPLIED FOR THE POST OF J.V.T. (MALE) DISTRICT QUETTA S. No. Roll No. Names Minimum required Qualification Professional Qualification Academic Weight-age 80% Weight-age 10% 4 454 Zubair Ahmed 453/800=56.62% 80%=45.30% 902/1400=64.43% 10%=6.44 10 89 Naveed Ahmed 503/1100=45.73% 80%=36.58 598/900=66.44% 10%=6.64 17 08 Raqeeb Ullah 555/1100=50.45% 80%=40.36 795/1400=56.79% 10%=5.67 Higher Educational Qualification Total Percentage Weight-age 10% 000 51.74 475/800=59.38% 10%=5.94% 49.16 000 46.03

6. The respondent No.5 viz Raqeeb Ullah secured 46.03% marks, which includes 40.36% marks for minimum qualification i.e. Intermediate and 5.67% marks for professional qualification i.e. PTC, whereas he has no higher qualification. Respondent No.4's total percentage is 51.74 which includes 45.30% marks for minimum required qualification (calculated on basis of Bachelors degree instead of Intermediate certificate) and 6.44% marks for professional qualification i.e. PTC. Meaning thereby, that his Bachelor's degree was considered as his minimum educational qualification, which was ought to be considered on basis of Intermediate qualification as per the stipulation contained in the advertisement. The petitioner's total marks are 49.16%, which includes 45.73% marks for minimum qualification (Intermediate), 6.64% marks for professional qualification (B.Ed.) and 5.94% marks for higher qualification i.e. Bachelor's degree (B.A.). The merit list shows that respondent No.4's merit was calculated on basis of Bachelor's Degree, which was considered his minimum qualification, rather than calculating the same on basis of Intermediate certificate, therefore, the column of his higher educational qualification is showed "nil" in the merit list. According to the stipulated formula 80% marks were allocated to the minimum qualification i.e. F.A./F.Sc. (Intermediate). In order to better understand the controversy, we have recalculated the percentage of the petitioner and the contesting respondents and up to their extent only recompiled the merit list, which is as follows:

S. No. Roll No. Names Minimum required Qualification F.A./FSc. Professional Qualification Academic Weight-age 80% Weight-age 10% 10 89 Naveed Ahmed 503/1100=45.73% 80%=36.58% 584/1000=58.4% 10%=5.84 4 454 Zubair Ahmed 479/1100=46.55% 80%=34.84% 902/1400=64.43% 10%=6.44 17 08 Raqeeb Ullah 555/1100=50.45% 80%=40.36 795/1400=56.79% 10%=5.67 Higher Educational Qualification Total Percentage Weight-age 10% 475/800=59.38% 10%=5.94% 48.36% 453/800=56.62% 10%=5.66% 46.94% 000 46.03% The petitioner possesses B.Ed. degree, therefore, in his case the B.Ed. degree shall be considered as his professional qualification. The petitioner secured 584 marks out of total 1000 marks in B.Ed. but the respondents Nos.4 and 5 possess PTC only, therefore, their percentage in professional qualification shall be calculated on basis of marks obtained in PTC, which entails total 1400 marks. Thus, the petitioner cannot be penalized for his higher professional qualification and respondents Nos.4 and 5 cannot be facilitated on basis of their PTC certificate. It is obvious that for admission in PTC course only intermediate certificate is required, but for admission in B.Ed. degree the Bachelor's degree is mandatory. Therefore, the petitioner is a better qualified person having higher professional qualification as compared to the contesting respondents Nos.4 and 5, who possess only PTC in terms of professional qualification, which by all means is lesser than B.Ed. degree. As far as the parawise comments filed by the official respondents is concerned, the same overlook the fact that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner though states that it was issued on 11-4-2012 but the year of examination is 2010, as such, on the cut date the petitioner had the qualification of B.Ed. degree. Had the weightage formula been rightly applied the petitioner would have secured 48.36% marks, while the respondents Nos.4 and 5 would have secured 46.94% marks and 46.03% marks respectively. Therefore, the petitioner should have been placed higher on merit list as he had secured higher marks than the contesting respondents. In view of above discussion we are of the considered view that the petitioner has successfully made out his case and he deserved to be appointed as he had obtained higher marks than the contesting respondents as per the prescribed weightage formula. In consequence whereof the official respondents are directed to rectify the errors in the merit list as mentioned hereinabove and thereafter, issue the appointment order of the petitioner against the post of junior Vernacular Teacher (JVT, B-9) in the Union Council Panjpai, District Quetta without any further loss of time. AG/18/Bal Order accordingly.