2025 PLP (C (PLC)

JAHANZEB KHAN, J.

The instant writ petition under Article 86(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, with enabling articles of the Constitution the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus with the prayer that: "It is therefore humbly prayed that by accepting this writ petition: a. This Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned office order No. sec.-Edu-2(24)/2020 dated 22-08-2022 upto the extent of impugned post, i.e. EST-14 Girls Middle School Nagar Bala UC Nagar Proper by declaring it ab-intio null and void being contrary to law and rules and against the fundamental rights of the petitioner and further direct the respondents to cancel the appointment order of the respondent No. 7 and appoint the petitioner as eligible, qualified and entitled for the said impugned post. b. This Honorable Court may graciously be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned office order. No.Sec-Edu-2(24)/2020 dated 22-08-2022 upto the extent of above mentioned impugned post of EST-14 UC Nagar-I and restrain the respondents from issuing the office letter to the respondent No.7 in the disguise of above stated impugned office order and to take joining/assuming the charge of respondent No. 7 against the impugned post and also restrain the respondents to release salary/pay of the respondent No. 7, till the final adjudication of the above writ petition, to meet the ends of justice, law and equity. c. Any other relief this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper may grant in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mazhar Hussian advocate advanced his arguments by submitting that the respondents have conducted the written test and interview against the impugned post, in stark and utter violation of law, rules and given terms and conditions in the advertisement. The respondents were bound to remain stick to the terms and conditions and abide by the para No. 16 of the advertisement. According to para No. 16 of the advertisement, distribution of Marks was to be: 70 % marks will be calculated from the test, 15% marks will be calculated from the academics and 15% marks will be calculated from the interview. But the respondents did not bother to follow this rule and interestingly, they have just calculated 70% marks from the written exam and did not apply the same rule (as mentioned in the porn No. 16 of the advertisement) on the Academic and Viva Voce, which amounts to ultra vires. Learned counsel further argued that inspite of that the present petitioner stands at serial No. 2 of the merit list with 41.95% marks by securing 2nd position, whereas, the respondent No.7 lags behind the present petitioner by securing 3n4 position with 40.85% marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, astonishingly, have issued appointment letter in favor of the respondent No.7 without any reason by violating the fundamental right of the petitioner. He went on to submit that the petitioner has exhausted all the available forums and time and again approached the respondents for redressal of her grievances but in-vain. Learned counsel finally argued that this Court of ultimate Jurisdiction has ample powers to redress the grievance of the petitioner, whose fundamental right has been infringed. With these submissions learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for acceptance of the present writ petition to meet the ends of justice.

3. Conversely, Learned Addl. AG Malik Sherbaz Khan controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the respondent No. 7 namely Nabila Abbas was on the top of the waiting merit list for UC Nagar Proper, therefore, she has been appointed against the said post as per procedure. Learned Addl. AG argued that the respondents have adopted similar procedure for selection of candidates and have treated all the candidates equally on similar footings without any discrimination. Learned Addl.AG submitted that no discrimination and injustice has been done to the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 has been rightly appointed against the said post. He further argued that the present writ petition is not maintainable, hence liable to dismissed with cost.

4. We have heard the arguments pro and contra at a considerable length and perused the available record.

5. Perusal of the available record transpires that the respondents have advertised some posts of Elementary School Teachers BS-14 in Education Department GB for Union Council Nagar-I. The whole procedure of test/interview and selection has been completed. Admittedly, the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the advertisement during the process of induction. This factum has been clearly elaborated by the petitioner in para No. 4 of the petition (para No. 16 of the advertisement), wherein the criteria for selection of candidates is given. As per the said rule/ criteria 70% marks from written test, 15% marks from the Academics and 15% marks from the interview were to be counted/ calculated for final selection of the candidate. But interestingly and astonishingly, the respondents have taken into consideration only one condition of the said criteria, i.e. 70% marks from the written test, whereas, the remaining two condition(s), i.e. 15% for academic and interview each have not been taken into consideration. This act of the respondents is utter and sheer violation of terms and conditions/ rules of the advertisement, which tantamounts to the infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner. There is no denial of the factum that the present petitioner has got second position by 41.95% and the respondent No.7 has got 3rd position by securing 40.85% who (respondent No.7) has been appointed by the respondents for the reasons better known to them by bulldozing the fundamental right of the present petitioner. When the learned Addl. A.G. was confronted with the particular question regarding strict compliance (by the respondents) of terms and conditions mentioned in the para No.16 of the advertisement, he replied in affirmative and submitted that though the respondents have violated the rules/terms and conditions of the advertisement but they (the respondents) have not acted indiscriminately and no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed in the instant matter. This argument and contention of the learned Addl. A.G. is incorrect.

6. In the wake of above circumstances, we are inclined to accept the instant writ petition and the respondents are directed to re-examine/consider the case of the petitioner namely Samina Sulaiman son of Sulaiman Ali and appoint her (present petitioner) against the post of EST-BS-14 at UC Nagar Proper, within two months after passing of this judgment under intimation on this Court through Registrar of this Court. It is clarified that the appointment of respondent No.7 shall remain intact. File. MQ/8/GB Petition allowed.