2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

This is a writ petition whereby petitioner has sought the following remedy:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted by directing the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to issue the appointment order of the petitioner being qualified and on merit for the post of Est. BPS-14 in Union Council Shankargrah Astore against the illegal occupied post of respondent No.5 in the said union or any vacant post in the said union, in the best interest of justice and equity."

2. Through advertisement, published in Daily K-2, dated 16-07-2011, respondents sought applications from suitable candidates for appointment as teachers. Accordingly, petitioner appeared in the written test and placed at serial No.12 in the merit list. Petitioner claimed that she is entitled to be appointed against suit post simply because respondents appointed respondent No.5, although said respondent did not appear in the suit tests.

3. It is not disputed that, by now, respondents have terminated services of respondent No.5 through office order No.Sec-Edu-2(14)/2014 dated 10-03-2014.

4. We have gone through the file and have heard learned counsel for parties. For ready reference, we reproduce para No.6 of the parawise comments, whereby, respondents Nos.1 to 4 have averred that petitioner could not qualify the test and interview, entitling her for appointment against any post of teacher. Said para is:- 6. "That, para-6 is also incorrect, baseless and against the facts. The result of initial written test as claming by the petitioner as the merit list, which only consists the names of successful candidates alphabetically and the same cannot be deemed as a final merit list. The final merit list is already attached herewith where the petitioner has stand at S.No.12 out of 13 candidates." It is very important to note that petition as well as parawise comments are silent about the number of posts for which the suit test and interview was held. It is not disputed that petitioner secured 12th position in the test and interview out of the 13 successful candidates. Through their reply to para No.6, respondents Nos.1 to 4 did not accept the list dated 03-10-2011, marked as "Annexure-E" by the petitioner as merit list and rather termed the same as an alphabetical list of the candidates who were short listed for interview. From ex-facie perusal of said list, it is abundantly clear that the same is really an alphabetical list and never a merit list. In paras. Nos.4, 6 and 7, respondents Nos.1 to 4 have averred that petitioner has got 12th position out of 13 successful candidates but could not qualify for her appointment against any post of teacher. So, in our opinion, [it was the duty of petitioner to establish that she had qualified the suit test and interview entitling her to be appointed against any suit post of teacher. In this connection, we find no material whatsoever showing entitlement of petitioner for her appointment against any suit post. Petitioner further failed to establish that respondents displayed any discrimination by appointing any person who had secured a position worse than the petitioner.]A 5. [Therefore, this petition fails and merited dismissal. Petition dismissed. File be consigned to record.]B ZC/137/GB Petition dismissed.