2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.

Through this single order I propose to decide the aforesaid writ petition as well as Writ Petition No.4417 of 2012 as identical question of law is involved in both the petitions.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondents invited applications for various categories of Educators. The petitioners being eligible applied for the posts of SSE (Arts) and after going through different parlays they were selected for the said posts; that some of the aggrieved persons approached this Court by filing various constitutional petitions which were decided through consolidated judgment dated 11-12-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.5062 of 2009. In the said judgment Secretary Education was directed to constitute a new Recruitment Committee to scrutinize the cases of successful candidates who applied for the posts of SSE if some one did not fall on merit to invoke the termination clause; that pursuant to said direction scrutiny committee was constituted who withdrew the two marks awarded to the petitioners for computer literacy on the ground that the petitioners do not possess the diploma of M.S. Office from the recognized institution of I.T. On the basis of said findings of scrutiny committee termination orders were issued to the petitioners which are impugned in these writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision of the scrutiny committee for withdrawal of two marks of computer literacy is illegal and without lawful authority; that according to the terms and conditions of the advertisement two marks were allocated for computer literate (M.S office); that neither any test nor any diploma was required for a candidate for award of these marks; that the petitioners besides having diplomas of M.S. Office from private institutions obtained their B.Ed degree including one subject of computer science as such they were fully entitled to get these two marks; that the scrutiny committee withdrew two marks of the petitioners unilaterally without issuing them any notice and affording them an opportunity to put forward their stance; that impugned termination orders are illegal, void, without lawful authority and liable to be set aside.

4. Conversely, learned Law Officer submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court scrutiny committee was constituted who after conducting thorough probe withdrew two marks of computer literacy; that two marks for computer literacy can only be granted to the candidates having MS-Office certificate issued by any recognized institution of I.T. department and that the diplomas possessed by the present petitioners are not recognized by any institution of I.T. as such the scrutiny committee rightly withdrew two marks awarded to them for computer literacy.

5. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record.

6. According to clause-iv of the terms and conditions of the advertisement for the post of SSE there shall be three marks for teaching experience and two marks for computer literate (M.S. Office). Neither the advertisement nor the policy for the recruitment of the Educators for the year 2008-2009 sets out the criteria for award of these two marks. In order to clarify this position query was made to the competent authority, in response to which EDO (Education) Bahawalnagar personally appeared in the Court and submitted that according to the notification No.SO(S.IV)2-34/2008(P) dated 11-11-2008 only the candidates possessing certificate of MS-Office issued by any institution recognized by the 1T department are entitled to get these two marks.

7. Perusal of the record shows that no criteria was laid down either in the advertisement or in the recruitment policy as to how these two marks would be awarded to a computer literate candidate. The only requirement for the award of these two marks as laid down in the advertisement and the policy was "Computer Literate (M.S Office)". While reading the advertisement every candidate possessing this qualification genuinely expected to obtain those two marks. The notification regarding imposition of condition of possessing diploma of M.S. Office from the recognized institution of IT was not publicized by the respondents/department in any newspaper and remained an internal document. In case reported as Ghulam Mustafa v. The Mehran University of Engineering and Technoloey, Jamshoro and 7 others (1986 CLC 1056 (Karachi) it has been held as follows:

"The determination of such date is necessary as once a vested right is created any amendment in the admission Rules affecting such vested right cannot be allowed. The admission policy is announced by publication of the prospectus. On the basis of such prospectus the applications are invited upto a particular date. These applications are considered and scrutinized immediately on the expiry of the last date for their submission. The applicants are then interviewed and selected for admission. In this process for admission the moment date for submission of application expires the applicant becomes entitled to be considered for admission. This seems to be reasonable and proper approach to the problem. After the expiry of last date no one can apply for admission. The applicants are to be considered on the basis of conditions, categories and criteria laid down in the prospectus or rules of admission. If the concerned authorities are allowed to amend the rules or policy after the last date and at any time before the admission process is completed then it is likely to result in serious abuses, malpractice, manipulation and favoritism. Even if the authority honestly and bona fide amends during this period it is likely to be viewed with suspicion and will injure the reputation and prestige of the august bodies like Syndicate. Amendment after expiry of the date before submission of application is fraught with serious consequences and likely to cause mistrust."

8. In the present case, the appointing authority did not give details or explanation that from "computer literate (M.S.Office)" as stated in the original advertisement it meant candidates having a M.S. Office diploma from a recognized institution of I.T. department. Therefore, applying the dictum laid down in the case-law stated supra the appointing authority could not amend and give a further meaning/ qualification to the term "computer literate (M.S. Office)" as contained in the original advertisement. According to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary meaning of "literate" is (i) "able to read and write" (ii) "educated" and further the meaning of "computer literate" is also provided in the said dictionary which is "someone who is educated, but who does not hold a university degree". Therefore, the term "computer literate (M.S. Office)" to an ordinary person of a prudent mind would mean any person who is able to use or work on a computer and in particular is familiar with or has knowledge of "M.S. Office" (which stands for "Microsoft Office" and is a software for use in computers) would be considered as computer literate and should expect to be awarded two marks. The petitioners having degrees of B.Ed. including one subject of computer science along with diploma in M.S. Office from private institution had thus have acquired a vested right to be considered for the award of two marks for "computer literate (M.S. Office)" as laid down in the advertisement and Recruitment Policy for the year 2008-09. Scrutiny Committee without adverting to this important aspect of the matter, withdrew two marks allocated to the petitioners for computer literacy. Learned Law Officer could not justify the act of Scrutiny Committee for depriving the petitioners from award of two marks of computer literacy.

9. Resultantly, both the aforementioned writ petitions are allowed as a result whereof findings of the scrutiny committee to the extent of the petitioners regarding withdrawal of two marks of "Computer literate (M.S. Office)" are declared illegal, without lawful authority and set-aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of the petitioners after awarding them two marks of computer literacy and if they fall on merit withdraw their termination orders without further wastage of time. KMZ/F-30/L Petitions allowed.