2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J,

The facts giving rise to this constitutional petition are that in response to the advertisement published in Daily Pakistan dated 24-11-2005 for recruitment of FWA (Female) in District Kasur, the petitioner being eligible and fulfilling all the requirements for the said posts applied on 8-6-2006 and appeared in interview along with other candidates. The respondents announced the result and final list of selected six female ladies for the said post was out. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the result filed a representation before respondent No.1 voicing her grievance that candidate with lesser qualifications were selected and mala fide was attributed to the Selection Committee. Since no reply was given by the respondents, the, present writ petition was filed. Report and parawise comments to the writ petition was filed by the respondents.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents Nos.3 to 6 were appointed in violation of the recruitment policy. Respondents Nos.3 to 6 possess less qualification or less grade as possessed by the petitioner. The number of posts was malafidely reduced to 6 in order to oust the petitioner. The mala fide is evident from the fact that the other six posts were readvertised just after 20 days. Respondents Nos.3 to 6 does not possess qualification to be posted. At the time of filing of the writ petition six posts were lying vacant.

3. Conversely, learned Assistant, Advocate-General .argued that admittedly 12 posts of F.W.A.(F) were advertised and after interview six candidates i.e. respondents Nos.3 to 6 were selected by the Selection Committee after holding the interview of the candidates and decision of the Recruitment Committee cannot be challenged by way of filing constitution writ petition. The Recruitment Committee is the best Judge at the given time to evaluate the ability, capability and suitability of a candidate for the post. The petitioner could have applied second time when advertisement of the six posts was made. On merit list petitioner secured 45 marks. By adding 5 marks less given to the petitioner her total comes to 50 and by any stretch of imagination she cannot claim to have attained 75 marks. Further argues that no mala fide is specifically pleaded in the writ petition or has been pointed out in the arguments. The petitioner had another opportunity to apply again in response to the advertisement published on 16-6-2006. The petitioner cannot claim to reconsider on the basis of her previous interview.

4. Having .heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it reveals that petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 6 applied for the posts of FWA (Female). She was interviewed by the Selection Committee and was given certain marks but she could not secure enough marks to be selected. Admittedly the authority of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged and questioned because of the fact that Selection Committee is the best Judge at the given time 10 form an opinion, take decision after judging the ability of the candidates and the Courts shall not interfere and thrust their opinion subsequently changing the verdict of the Selection Committee except when it has been made other than the capability of the petitioner or smacks of mala fide. The respondent department with their reply and parawise comments annexed merit lists of the candidates showing that petitioner obtained less marks than respondents Nos.3 to

6. In reply to the objections that numbers of posts were reduced malafidely, it is stated that the Finance Department at the time of finalization of result/selection list had issued budgetary sanction only for six posts and it was so mentioned in advertisement that the competent authority can enhance or reduce the numbers of posts. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. M.H./S-114/L Petition dismissed.