Sanaullah Vs Govt of KPK etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

WP No. 865-D of 2015

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 17.04.2017

Appellant-petitioner Sana Ullah by Mr. Muhammad Mohsin Ali Advocate.

Respondent Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by Mr. Kamran Hayat Miankhel AAG for respondent No.1, 6, Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Khan Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5.

MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN, J.- Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner Sanaullah has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition the appointments of respondents No.9 to 11 be declared as illegal, against the law and based on ulterior motives and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the subject post as per merit list in any village council of union council Miran, D.I.Khan or any other Imran/*

relief deemed fit may also be given to the petitioner.”

2.Brief facts as spelt out from the writ petition, are that pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Village/Neighbourhood Council Secretary, floated by Rural Development Department, Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, the petitioner appeared in the NTS exam and passed the same by securing 70 marks in provisional list containing aggregate marks. That the official respondents issued impugned office order dated 23.12.2015, whereby respondents No.9 to 11, who were below in merit, were malafidely appointed as Village Secretaries on Union Council Miran and thus being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3.The respondents, in their para-wise comments contended that the petitioner had failed in the computer test which was essential requirement for the subject post, therefore, he cannot claim his appointment as of right.

Imran/*

4.Arguments heard and record gone through.

5.It appears from the merit list placed on file by the respondents that though the petitioner was having 70 marks, but was failed in the computer test and interview. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was having higher marks before interview and that the respondents have malafidely failed the petitioner in the interview, hold little water as this Court cannot enter upon the domain of the interviewing authorities or can question the computer test conducted by the respondents. The apex Court in its judgments reported in 2014 SCMR-157 and 2015 SCMR-112, held that, “High Court could not substitute its own opinion with that of interview board”. Similarly, in the case reported in 2000 SCMR- 966, the apex Court held that “Candidate having passed the written test but failed in interview to secure qualifying marks were rightly declined appointments”.

6.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly objecting on Imran/*

the recruitment process and the criteria adopted by the respondent department. We would like to observe here that every department of the Provincial Government in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, while making any appointment, is bound by the recruitment policy duly formulated under the provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, wherein apart from other quotas, disable, female or deceased quota has also been mentioned. We have examined the impugned appointment letter and found that all these quotas were duly observed and as such no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the department. Similarly, in the advertisement, it was also mentioned that the candidate must have:

ÏöZ pZ /}Z pZÐeg1{”& ¤ (i) c yJZ ~z )ÆkZ & ¤(ii) XƒHk0 ÛÐ}g Z kgû{â 6* zÅ‚R Z {” internet/Email Inpage (Urdu) and Ms-Word, Excel ÔXƒ Hk0 XƒÝqgˆ6 ÚZgz Z (Inpage) £yZ (iii)

Imran/*

7.Keeping in view the requirement of the advertisement, without conducting computer test, the capability of the candidate cannot be adjudged, therefore, the department has rightly conducted test in computer.

8.We, while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction, cannot enter into domain of appointing authority or the selection committee to judge the potential of a candidate, therefore, this writ petition, being without merit, is hereby dismissed.

Announced.

Dt:17.4.2017.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Imran/*