1994 PLP 673 (MLD)

MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.

This is an appeal under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Act, 1972 against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4-12-89, dismissing W.P.160/S/82 filed by the appellant.

2. The facts of the case find elaborate mention in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court and, therefore, need not be reproduced here. Suffice it to say that the appellant appeared in the Competitive Examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission and secured 40th position in All Pakistan Merit List while in the Merit List for the candidates of Province of Punjab, he ranked at number

28. He was offered a post in Grade 17 in the "Office Management Group" which he accepted. He, however, subsequently represented that on merit he qualified to be appointed to a better group which was unfairly denied to him, though the candidates securing lesser marks than the appellant have been granted employment in the District Management, Foreign Affairs and Customs and Excise Group. Feeling dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant filed the Constitutional petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge who was of the view that allocation of the groups was for the Government to decide after holding such an inquiry as may be considered necessary keeping in view the suitability of a candidate. It was observed that in the present case, the appellant was found fit for appointment in the office management group only and he could not, therefore, claim any vested right for' allocation of any other group.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated before us that according to the Rules of Admission of candidates for the examination held in 1978-79 as published in the public notice of the Federal Public Service Commission dated 30-10-1978, allocation of particular group of service was solely dependent upon the merit of the candidate and the marks obtained by him at selection. In this behalf, reference was made by him to rule 12 of the Rules and para. 3 of the Recruitment Policy. He maintained that all other considerations being irrelevant, the appellant has been unfairly discriminated against as candidates possessing lessers merits have been allocated District Management, Foreign Affairs and Customs and Excise Group.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, argued that the allocation of a particular group of service is. not dependent solely upon the marks obtained by a candidate in the examination but other matters like aptitude, performance in interview and the traits of his personality are also considered by the Public Service Commission while making recommendation for appointment to a group. From the record it was pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the Federal Service Commission had opined that the appellant was fit for office work only.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and given our consideration to the arguments addressed at the Bar, we find ourselves unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Rule 12 of the Rules, 1978 on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for appellant -reads as under:

"Subject to the Recruitment policy explained in Appendix IV of these Rules, candidates securing the highest places on the combined results of the written examination, Psychological and viva voce tests and eligible for appointment will be appointed up to the number of vacancies available."

6. Para. 3 of the Recruitment Policy in Appendix IV of the notice may also be reproduced to which reference has also been made by the learned counsel for the appellant:

"Appointment to vacancies. to be filled by candidates belonging to a particular community or a province area shall be made by Government in the order of merit of the candidates belonging to that community or province areas provided that. they have qualified in the examination and are in all respects suitable for employment under Government."

7. The two provisions reproduced above, on their plain wording, do not bear out the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the allocation of a particular group is solely dependent upon merits. Rule 12 merely provides that the number of vacancies available shall be filled in from the candidates who had secured highest places. Similarly, para. 3 of the policy also deals with the question of allocation of vacancies to different provinces. There is nothing either in rule 12 or in para. 3 of the Policy from which it can be even inferred that the allocation of a group of service has to be according to the marks obtained by a candidate.

8. We are, respectfully, in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that a reading of the rules on the subject as also Policy as a whole sufficiently demonstrate that it is not a right of the candidate to insist that he should be allocated a particular group. The matter is in the discretion of the Government which has to be exercised keeping in view the recommendations made by the Public Service Commission which in turn are dependent upon the aptitude, his performance in interview, Psychological test and traits of his personality. The view which we have taken finds support from following paragraphs appearing in the rules which provide for holding viva voce and Psychological Tests: "Psychological Test

Candidates called for viva voce test will be required to undergo a Psychological Test designed to assess their inherent tendencies and capabilities, their personal qualities and traits of character with special regard to their aptitude for the Services. Candidates must bring their Registration Identity Cards when summoned for Psychological and viva voce tests.

2. Viva Voce

Each candidate will be interviewed by a Board who will have before them a record of his/her career both academic and extra mural. He/she will be asked questions on matters of general interest. The object of the interview is to assess his/her suitability for the services for which he/she is entered and in framing their assessment the Board will attach particular importance to the moral and ethical qualities of the candidate, his/her intelligence and alertness of mind, his/her vigor and strength of character and his/her potential qualities of leadership. The Board will take into consideration his/her extra mural activities such as sports, debates, hobbies, etc. and their effect on his/her physique and character. in assessing his/her merit."

9. However, it needs no gainsaying that if in a particular case, it is demonstrated that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, unjudiciously and in a discriminatory manner, the same can be struck down.

10. In order to satisfy ourselves that the petitioner has been dealt with in a fair and just manner, we called for record from the Federal Public Service Commission which has been produced before us. In the column reserved for allocation of group the member of the Public Service Commission had opined that the appellant was "fit -for office work only". Similarly, the report of Psychological Test shows that the appellant was considered as a candidate of limited potentiality and with very little promise. There are other observations which, however, may not be reproduced lest the same should prejudice the future prospects of the appellant but the fact remains that for reasons given in the report, the appellant was found not suitable for appointment to any other group.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the fact that rules in the year 1980 were amended so as to read that the allocation of the group shall be in the discretion of the Government. He wanted us to infer from this that prior to amendment, the Government had no discretion in the matter. We regret we do not find ourselves persuaded to agree with him. The amendment made in the year 1980 was clarificatory in nature and it is not possible to draw any inference that prior thereto, the position was different. As already observed, on reading of various rules which have been elaborately discussed by the learned Single Judge, the inevitable conclusion is that no candidate has a vested right to be appointed to a post in a particular group. In the view of the matter, we do not find any justification for interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. A.A./M-1311/L Appeal dismissed.