1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NASIR-UL-MULK, J.

Dr. Zubair Khan, presently studying as a full-time student in the University of Dublin, Ireland, undergoing education in medicine and surgery, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Oral Surgery for K.C.D. in the Health Department, advertised by the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission on 31-10-1997. The last date for submission of applications was 8-12-1997 for local candidates and 22-12-1997 for candidates from abroad. The date for the interview of candidate was set for 5-5-1998. Since the petitioner had to appear in his final examination at Dublin from 5-5-1998 to 14-5-1998, the petitioner, through his father, applied to the Commission for the extension of the date of interview. Receiving no written response from the Commission, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for, the extension of the date of interview.

2. The writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 30-4-1998. Pre-admission notice was given to the Commission, respondent No.2 for 5-5-1998. On the date fixed the representative of the Commission appeared and stated that the application of the petitioner already stands rejected, in view of the changed circumstances. The writ petition was allowed to be amended at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. While arguing the amended writ petition, in motion, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two contentions. Firstly, that the application of the petitioner for extension of time was declined in writing only three days before the date fixed for the interview, thus not leaving the petitioner with reasonable time to decide whether or not to appear personally for the interview. Secondly, that under Policy Decision No. 18(1) published in the Policy Decision of N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission, 1990 the Commission was bound to consider the petitioner's application in absentia on account of his "distinctly higher qualification than the minimum prescribed for the post".

4. The petitioner in the unamended writ petition .had prayed for direction to the Commission to decide his application for extension of time. As that application stands decided, the prayer has become infructuous. As regards the timing of rejection of the application, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would have had relevance had the petitioner showed his willingness to appear for the interview on 5-5-1998. Such willingness has neither been stated in the writ petition nor was it claimed at the Bar. Regarding the extension of time, no doubt a provision therefore is made under the Policy Decision No. 18(3) the Commission is not obliged to extend such time.

5. The second contention of the learned counsel is based on the Policy Decision No. 18(1) of the Commission. The petitioner had not initially applied to be considered in absentia on the basis of his "distinctly higher qualification" but had only sought extension of time of the interview. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commission on their own can apply the Policy Decision No. 18(1) as no provision for application was made in the Policy. True that the Policy Decision does not in so many words require a candidate to make an application to be considered under the Policy Decision yet the Commission is not required to apply the decision suo motu. For the candidate relying upon the Policy Decision must bring it to the notice of the Commission as to how his qualifications are distinctly higher than the minimum required for the post. The learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished an affidavit that he had personally submitted an application in the Office of the Public Service Commission on 5-5-1998, the date fixed for the interview, that the petitioner be considered under Policy Decision No. 18(1). The learned counsel conceded that the application was handed over to the office when the interview for the post was already underway and that no receipt for the application was given to him. It seems that it was too late in the day, to move such an application when the interviews for the post were being conducted.

6. For the foregoing reasons we do not find that any vested right of the petitioner has been infringed. The writ petition does not, therefore, deserve to be admitted to full hearing and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./126/P Petition dismissed.