Appointment to advertised post

When any of the selected candidates does not join the service, the department should consider the next candidate in the merit list for appointment against said post.

Petitioner challenged the order passed by department whereby his application for appointment as Sub-Inspector (BS-11), being next in merit, was turned down

Validity

Merit list was prepared in 2017 and department for the first time in 2018 requested the Public Service Commission to provide substitute candidates by clearly mentioning that none out of the four recommended candidates joined duty

In this view of the matter, petitioner came at Serial No. 4 of the waiting candidates, thus, his right to be considered for appointment being next in merit list accrued well within the validity of the merit list

In response, Public Service Commission only provided one substitute candidate and already recommended three candidates were again included

Admitted position of the matter was that the recommended candidates had not joined the duties and the department was willing to make appointment from waiting candidates then why four candidates in the waiting list were not appointed simultaneously

Department was at fault in not actively completing the recruitment process and lingering on the matter without any legal justification

Waiting candidate had already been appointed but the petitioner was subjected to discrimination in violation of equality clause contained in Article 25 of the Constitution

Petitioner could not be penalized for a wrong, lapse or ignorance on the part of the department

Impugned order was declared to be illegal and was set aside

Department was directed to redress the petitioner's grievance in liaison with the Public Service Commission

Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed the appointment of private respondent on disabled persons' quota and sought a direction for his appointment instead of private respondent's

Validity

Private respondent had earlier applied against different posts while declaring himself to be medically fit

Law of estoppel did not allow the private respondent to alter his position that he suffered from disability

Estoppel was an equitable doctrine, a bar that prevented one from asserting a claim or right that contradicted what one had said or done before, or what had been legally established as true

Private respondent could not take advantage of his own inconsistent positions

So far as locus standi of the petitioner was concerned, two posts were allocated for the persons with disability and the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 3 of the Merit List, therefore, he was an aggrieved person within the meaning of Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Petitioner claimed employment in Education Department as Junior Education Teacher (JET) against the posts reserved for disabled persons

Petitioner had qualified the National Testing Service (NTS) test and was entitled for appointment as JET against the post reserved for disabled person but he was not issued appointment order by the competent authority and his appeal before the Divisional Complaint Redressal Cell was rejected on the ground that the degree issued by the concerned University was not recognized by the Higher Education Commission

Counsel for Higher Education Commission had not only confirmed that the University was accredited and recognized by the Higher Education Commission but had also verified the degree of the petitioner

Disability Certificate of the petitioner was got verified by the High Court, it was held that petitioner was entitled to the relief claimed for

Constitutional petition to his extent was accepted.

Two of the petitioners claimed employment in Education Department as Junior Vernacular Teacher (JVT) against the posts reserved for disabled persons

Validity

One post of JVT was available for disabled person

One of the petitioners had secured 40.04 marks, the other had secured 43.93 marks and the person who was appointed as JVT had secured 48.78 marks

Since the appointment against one post reserved for disabled person as JVT had been made on merits and the petitioners had secured marks lesser than the appointed disabled person, therefore, petitioners were not entitled for the relief claimed

Constitutional petition was dismissed to their extent.

However, the post was eventually filled through a transfer, despite the fact that other Similar posts had already been filled

Only reason given for not filling the post was that a transfer/adjustment was in progress

Petitioner had the right to be treated in the same way as others who were appointed, and the treatment he received was discriminatory and unjust

Constitutional petition was allowed and the department was directed to appoint the petitioner to the post.

Petitioner sought issuance of writ seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him as an Assistant Information Officer (BS-16) in place of the private respondent

Validity

Marks of the petitioner and private respondent had tied and on the basis of being older in age private respondent was given preference

Petitioner, no doubt, had practical experience but his job was not a full time paid job as required under Regln. 29(a) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2017

Such experience could not be considered for the subject post

Where the aggregate marks and also the marks in interview between two candidates were the same or when there was a tie in marks, then, the Regln. 32(c) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2017, came into play which provided that the candidate who was older in age shall be placed senior to the one who was younger

Private respondent being older in age was given preference

No case was made out for the interference of High Court through the Constitutional petition

Petition was dismissed.

District Education Authority advertised the posts of Elementary School Educators but erroneously mentioned the name of wrong Union Council

Petitioner was resident of the Union Council mentioned in the advertisement

District Recruitment Committee awarded twelve additional marks of local residence to the petitioner and generated letter of agreement against the post, however, later on vide impugned order the Committee revised the award of additional marks of local residence

Validity

Petitioner had not challenged the impugned order on the ground of her entitlement under the Recruitment Policy 2016-17, therefore, the impugned order was not questionable in so far as lack of entitlement of the petitioner to additional marks for local residence was concerned

Contention of petitioner that the appointment, even if made on the basis of an erroneous merit list prepared pursuant to an erroneous advertisement in violation of the Government Policy, could not be disturbed when the mistake was attributable to someone else was untenable

Petitioner undisputedly was beneficiary of the errors in recruitment process, therefore, it was improper on the part of the High Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioners, in response to advertisement for recruitment of Primary School Teachers on contract basis, applied for the same and appeared in Written Examination, whereafter being purportedly successful candidates, they appeared in interview, whereafter they were issued Offer Letters subject to their Medical Fitness being certified by an authorized Medical Officer

Contention of petitioners was that the doctor refused to take Medical Test and addressed a letter to the department for issuance of fresh letters on the ground that time mentioned in the Offer Letters had already lapsed

Argument of department was that the petitioners had failed to pass the written test with minimum 60% marks, hence, none of them were eligible for the post they had applied for

Validity

None of the petitioners had secured 60% or more marks and thus, did not fulfill the criteria as laid down in the Recruitment Policy

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 11 of the merit list wherein it was mentioned that the list was effective for six months

Candidates falling at Serial Nos. 1 and 10 were appointed as teachers; the candidates at Serial Nos. 6 and 8 were initially appointed but on indication of fake degrees they resigned from the job whereas candidates falling at Serial Nos. 2, 5, 7 and 9 of the merit list were appointed

Respondents adjusted the petitioner on temporary basis of which petitioner was aggrieved and sought direction for his permanent adjustment

Contention of department was that the petitioner had failed to bring his grievance before the competent authority within prescribed period of his permanent appointment in the light of merit, therefore, his claim at belated stage could not be entertained

Validity

Petitioner could not be blamed for procrastination on the part of official respondents

Department was duty bound to redress the grievance of the petitioner when the posts had fallen vacant due to indication of fake degrees

When the petitioner had applied for open competition against a vacant post and had come up to the mark thus a valuable right had created in his favour which could not be snatched by way of procrastination

Constitutional petition was accepted and the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner against the post of Junior Clerk in the light of his meritorious position.

Case of petitioner was that 12 posts of Range Officer were advertised against the quota of different units by the Forest Department for appointment on ad hoc basis whereas requisition of the posts was sent by the department to Public Service Commission without calculation of quota of district 'J'

Case of the department was that due to adjustment of a Range Officer quota of district 'J' had already been exhausted

Petitioner produced an appointment notification of the said Range Officer whereby the post of Range Officer was filled in on the recommendations of Public Service Commission against the quota of district 'M'

High Court observed that concealment of facts by the department had to direct the department to recalculate correct quota and send the requisition of the said posts to Public Service Commission afresh in accordance with law and rules

Writ petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned advertisement.

Perusal of advertisement revealed that the number of posts could be enhanced, thus, after availability of other post the second appointment was made, while the petitioner had not challenged the condition

Proper course in the appointments of the (private) respondents had been adopted

Petitioner had failed to prove his case regarding illegal appointments of (private) respondents

Writ petition was dismissed.

Petitioner was selected for recruitment against the post of Medical Officer being eligible candidate by the District Recruitment Committee and her name reflected in the original merit list prepared by it but she was not appointed

Validity

Undisputed merit list had created a vested right in favour of petitioner, which was required to be given due weight and regard as she had developed legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment

No valid reason and implicit justification was rendered for denying appointment to the petitioner

Impugned action was against fundamental rights of petitioner guaranteed under Arts. 9, 18, 25 & 27 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.

Policy for Recruitment provided that for appointment as ESE (Sci-Math), academic qualification of a candidate must be B.Sc. with at least two subjects out of Chemistry, Zoology, Botany, Physics, Math-A Course, Math-B Course and Math or B.Sc./B.A. in other subjects with F.Sc.

Respondent claimed to have passed her B.Sc. after having passed her F.Sc. Examination with Physics, Mathematics and Statistics

Authorities held that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed as she had passed her Intermediate Examination in General Science Group and her qualification could not be equated with F.Sc.

Respondent's constitutional petition against said order was accepted

Validity

F.Sc. by itself was no qualification and the term 'F.Sc' was alien to the Scheme of Studies/System of Education being non-existent

Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education issued certificates to the successful candidates of Intermediate Examination with the specification as Intermediate (Annual/Supplementary) Examination and Groups such as Pre-Medical, Pre-Engineering, General Science, etc

Appellants' inviting applications from the candidates requiring qualification as F.Sc. was wrong

High Court observed that since the qualification acquired by the respondent did not match with requirements of the authorities as such she was rightly declared ineligible to be appointed against the post advertised

Order passed by Single Judge of High Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Petitioner had applied against the posts in question and his name was included in the short listed candidates, thereafter he had participated in the selection process actively but had failed to secure appointment

Petitioner, as per department, had also tendered fake certificate of his experience

While exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction, the conduct of the petitioner was also to be filtered through the lens of bona fide, which was to be judged by the court in the light of his conduct and overall circumstances of the case

Doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel were fully attracted in the matter

Court could not substitute the findings of the selection authority (based upon wisdom) without indication of any arbitrariness and illegality

Petitioner had failed to make out any point for interference by High Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

When a person actively participates in the selection process subsequently he cannot come up with volte-face (a reversal in policy) and challenge the selection process at random by criticizing the mode of selection or questioning the bona fides of the selection authority.

Where a person lacked basic qualification to be appointed, any time spent in rendering the service would not cure the defect in his appointment, especially when there were other contestants available for the said post who could not be appointed solely for the reason that the petitioner was selected for the appointment

Lack of basic qualification or failure to meet the eligibility criteria was a defect which could not be cured by attaining said qualification or higher qualification subsequently, unless the same was permitted by the statute, rules, regulations, policy decision or the advertisement through which applications for appointment were invited.

Where basic appointment order is issued without lawful authority then superstructure built thereupon would fall on the ground automatically.

Advertisement in newspaper for appointment of the post to the post of driver was issued, in which required qualification for the post of driver was middle pass and holder of LTV driving licence with 2 years experience on the closing date

Although, the petitioner applied for the said post but he did not possess any LTV driving licence, which was subsequently issued to him and was appointed

During subsistence of the contract, a contestant challenged the appointment of petitioner by filing a complaint before the Ombudsman by claiming that the petitioner on the date of appointment lacked the requisite qualification, who referred the matter to the department and consequently due to lack of driving experience his services were terminated

Recording of any evidence for holding regular enquiry did not exist in the matter as there was no factual controversy requiring resolution and determination in view of the fact that the petitioner had neither raised any triable issue nor claimed to have possessed LTV driving licence prior to the closing date of the filing of application

Constitutional petition, being devoid of force, was dismissed.

Grievance of petitioner was that he had passed written test, endurance test as well as appeared in general interview however, he was declared 'Fail' in general interview despite the fact that he had been on top in other tests

Validity

Petitioner could not obtain 8 marks out of 20 marks in general interview, therefore, he was declared 'Fail' by the interview committee

Clause 19 of the advertisement clearly demonstrated that the candidates had to pass all exams/interview and in case of failure at any stage, they would not be recruited

Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed.

Court cannot prescribe the eligibility or experience qualifications and work experience in assessment of suitability of a particular nature of job and its scope in the context of a particular employer.

Petitioner assailed objection raised in the rejection list whereby his application for appointment was rejected on the ground of being over-aged

Validity

Ex-army personnel could apply for the post, however their age must not be above forty years whereas the date of birth of petitioner as per his CNIC was about forty three years and he did not meet with the requisite requirement of the advertisement

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner assailed objection raised in the rejection list whereby his application for appointment was rejected on the ground of non-attaching his CNIC with the application

Validity

Petitioner had only attached acknowledgement receipt of the application form with the petition but had not attached the application form along with attested photocopy of the CNIC

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner, claiming to be resident of said union council applied for the post and successfully passed the assessment test but was refused an offer letter by the Education Department (respondents) on grounds that he was resident of other union council

Contentions of petitioner were that he had passed the assessment test and was shown to be eligible for the post; that out of the eleven (11) successful candidates, he was the only one not to be issued an offer letter; that he was discriminated against, notwithstanding the fact that he had been declared as successful for the post, and that he used to be a resident of the other union council but later on shifted to the specified union council

Validity

To support his contention that he belonged to the specified union council, petitioner produced his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC), permanent residence certificate, domicile certificate and residence certificates, however petitioner's previous Identity card, domicile certificate and permanent residence certificate mentioned that he belonged to the other union council

Comments of "mukhtiarkar (revenue)" and ."taluka matiari ", showed that the petitioner was originally inhabitant of other union council but when he applied for the post in question, he ceased to reside in said union council and presently was residing in specified union council in a house owned by his uncle

Petitioner had not produced any document to establish as to when he transferred his residence from other to specified union council

Documents produced by petitioner in support of his contention that he was resident of specified union council were of subsequent dates, i.e. after filing of present petition and said documents were seemingly procured after the advertisement of post in question

Such conduct of petitioner was, prima facie, proof that he had not approached the court with clean hands

Petitioner was not entitled to be appointed against any vacant post in the specified union council

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.