2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:

In view of above submission that the recruitment and appointment in result of advertisement dated 26.04.2015 against the post of Sales Officer in sales department may kindly be declared unconstitutional, illegal, without lawful authority, against the Federal Government recruitment policy, disregard of the merits, violation of all rules of justice, fair play, transparency and therefore may kindly be set aside. The petitioner may kindly be ordered to be appointed to the post of Sales Officer in Sales Department of SNGPL.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointments for the post of Sales Officer are without rules. The petitioner obtained highest marks and his name was reflected at Serial No.1 in the NTS but he was not appointed by the respondents department, as such, the appointments against the advertisement dated 26.04.2015 for the post of Sales Officer may kindly be declared illegal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised objection that the instant writ petition is not maintainable against the respondents; that the petitioner has not made party to the appointee who applied and selected as Sales Officer; that the petitioner was below merit list, as such, he was not rightly appointed by the respondents department and in constitutional jurisdiction the factual controversy cannot be resolved. 4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant record with their able assistance.

5. From the perusal of record, it reveals that the respondents department invited applications for different posts including the post of Sales Officer vide publication dated 26.04.2015. The petitioner and others after acceptance the terms and conditions of the advertisement applied for the said post. The recruitment committee after interview of all the candidates prepared the merit list and the name of the petitioner was reflected at Serial No.18, whereas, 11 posts were available for the recruitment of Sales Officer and 11 successful candidates were appointed by the recruitment committee according to the merit list. When the merit list confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has not denied the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish any malice on the part of the members of the Recruitment Committee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite having qualified the test and interview petitioner was not recommended for appointment is misconceived as from the perusal of the record it reveals that the petitioner was below merit and for this reason the Recruitment Committee has not recommended him for appointment. It is settled law that this Court cannot substitute opinion of the Recruitment Committee and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on the same point in case reported as Arshad Ali Tabassum v. The Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore (2015 SCMR 112) has held as under: "

7. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not recommended for appointment by the Committee due to the malice on the part of the members of the Interview Committee for the reason that his services were terminated as Civil Judge on the charge of misconduct, is concerned, suffice it to observe that according to the established principle of law this Court cannot substitute opinion of the Interview Committee on the bald allegation after losing the chance in the interview. Reference is made to the case of Asif Mahmood Chughtai, Advocate and 17 others v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (2000 SCMR 966), Dr. Mir Alam Jan v. Dr. Muhammad Shahzad and others (2008 SCMR 960) and Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 157). In such circumstances, the petitioner could not establish any malice on the part of the Interview Committee. There is also no measuring apparatus with this Court to determine that the petitioner was deferred in the interview by the Interview Committee only for the sole reason of his misconduct as Civil Judge. It is presumed that the Interview Committee must have given the petitioner marks after judging his ability without being influenced by the earlier misconduct of the petitioner as the Interview Committee was not acting as Disciplinary Committee dealing with the misconduct of the petitioner. Since the petitioner could not fulfil the requisite criteria for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, therefore, he was not recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee, thus, no illegality has been committed by the respondent while acting on the recommendations of the Examination Committee warranting interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction."

7. Even otherwise, the petitioner applied for the post of Sales Officer after acceptance of terms and conditions of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appointment of Sales Officer was not according to the rules, whereas, in prayer clause of the instant writ petition, the petitioner himself stated that the appointments of sales officers were made in violation of rules. Furthermore, admittedly, the rules of SNGPL are non-statutory. The petitioner did not make party to the selected/successful candidates, whereas, he sought relief against the said selected candidates, as such, the writ petition was filed on the basis of mis-joinder and non-joinder. It is well settled that in the absence of a necessary party no effective decree or order can be passed. Reliance is placed on the cases of Dr. Saleem Javed and others v. Mst. Fauzia Nasim and others (2003 SCMR 965) and Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v. Gullan and others (PLD 1982 SC 46).

8. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recruitment committee has neither evaluated the petitioner nor granted him marks of interview as he deserved. Further, the matter pertains to the factual controversy and cannot be decided in constitutional Jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCMR 618) and Anjuman Fruit Arhtian and others v. Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad and others (2011 SCMR 279).

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity or violation in the recruitment process as well as appointment for the post of Sales Officer and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect.

10. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed being misconceived and devoid of any merits. ZC/H-23/L Petition dismissed.