2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.

These petitions for leave to appeal have arisen out of the judgment dated 16.2.2016 of the Islamabad High Court whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents in the following terms:- "

17. The instant petition is consequently allowed. The decision of the Eligibility/Scrutiny Committee, dated 06.04.2015, to the extent of the respondent No. 4 and all subsequent orders/steps taken pursuant thereto, particularly approval granted by the Executive Committee and the impugned appointment of the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 29.05.2015 are declared illegal, without lawful authority or jurisdiction, being in violation of the Statutes and the principle of transparency. The appointment letter, dated 29.5.2015, is accordingly set aside. The University may proceed with the process relating to the Advertised Post for selecting the most capable person from amongst the eligible candidates on the basis of merit. This Court expects that the University shall make the appointment having regard to the criterion/conditions prescribed under the Statutes, as explicitly mentioned in the advertisement dated 08.02.2015." The only controversy urged by the learned ASC for the petitioner before us was that the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria in terms of qualification and experience for appointment as Deputy Director; that she was rightly selected by the Selection Board and that the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction could not substitute its view for that of the Board that too when it was well weighed and well reasoned.

2. The learned ASC appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 adopted the arguments addressed at the bar by the learned ASC for the petitioner.

3. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 appearing in person defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the petitioner having been in the field of "Design" could not satisfy the eligibility criteria for the post of Deputy Director Production. They next contended that even if, it is assumed without conceding, that she worked for a few years in the field of production that would not entitle her to appointment when her experience falls short of 12 years.

4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of learned ASCs for the parties.

5. Before we deal with the controversy it is worthwhile to see what is the criteria for being appointed as Deputy Director in the Institute. The statute prescribing the criteria, which is also reflected in the advertisement, reads as under:- "At least 12 years' experience as Programme Manager/ Controller of Programmes/Producer in Radio/Television or equivalent post in the audio-visual centres of Education Department or other relevant organization. Desirable: (1) Experience of more than one medium (Radio, Television, Film). (2) Experience in the production of educational programmes. (3) Experience of media management. (4) Published work (creative/research)" Now question arises whether petitioner satisfied the criteria spelt out by statute. The learned ASC of the petitioner to substantiate his point of view mainly relied upon the certification of the former director of the institute which reads as under:- "It is in recognition of the audio-visual production capabilities of Ms. Shabnam Irshad Ahmed who was assigned various programmes for radio and television during the period from 2009-2011 and March 2014 to June 2014. Keeping in view her experience with visualization of arts, she was assigned a special task to videotize the history and life of various nomads in Pakistan that she accomplished in an artistic way. Other than this, she produced various T.V. programme to present the educational programmes of AIOU. She was also assigned to produce introductory programmes for FM service to provide guidance to the students, for autumn semester, 2010. In these 40 programmes she interviewed all the concerned heads of the departments and course co-coordinators. Her productions met the fine quality and were appreciated by the department. (Muhammad Qasim Haider) Director, IET" The record reveals that petitioner has been working in the field of Design which has its own hierarchy and opening for promotion. She could be appointed as Deputy Director in the respective field if and when any vacancy occurred therein. Production is a distinct field which has its own dynamics and determinants. Petitioner may have experience in her respective field which by no stretch of imagination could be termed and treated as experience in the field of production. The certification she relied upon is more or less subjective as it does not show what it is based on. In case it has some worth it does not show anywhere that the petitioner has the requisite experience in the field of Production, nor does any reckoning of whatever has been mentioned therein could stretch her experience to 12 years in the said field. As against that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 satisfy the eligibility criteria in terms of qualification as well as experience as they possess the Master-degree and 12 years' experience in the field of Production. We don't understand what led the Board to shift from the evident to the obscure and from the definite to the doubtful while assessing the merit of the respondents and the petitioner. Yes, the High Court could not substitute its own view for that of the Board but it could turn down a conclusion based on a wrong arithmetical calculation. When seen in this background the view taken by the High Court appears to be unexceptionable. We, therefore, don't feel inclined to interfere therewith.

6. For the reasons discussed above, these petitions being without merit are dismissed and the leave asked for is refused. MWA/S-24/SC Petitions dismissed.