This appeal has been filed purportedly under Section 7(3) (d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977. Vide Consolidated Advertisement dated 16.9.2001 (Annex: T), applications were invited, inter alia, for appointment to the post of Director, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division (BPS-20). Following qualifications were prescribed for the said appointment:--
(i) Second Class or Grade "C" Master's degree or equivalent qualification in Computer Science/Physics, OR Second Class or Grade "C" Bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering recognized by University Grants Commission.
(ii)Seventeen years experience in BPS-17 or equivalent in Programming, System Designing and Operations Research supported by project reports including Five years experience of supervising the system and programming staff at a major computer installation.
(iii)Experience in computerization of Government Rules, Regulations and Laws of Pakistan and their publication on WWW preferable.
(iv)Maximum Age: 45 years.
(v)The post was from merit quota.
2. According to the appellant the was possessed of the said qualifications and he filed an application which was rejected forthwith. He filed an appeal whereupon he was called for interview for pre-qualification purposes. He appeared before the Respondent No, 1 on 14.2.2002 for the said purpose. He was accordingly pre-qualified and was called for interview alongwith three others including Respondent No,
3. One of the said persons, namely, Qasim Ali did not appear. However, the other three including the appellant and' Respondent No, 3 appeared. After the completion of the proceedings, Respondent No, 3 was placed at Serial No, 1 while the appellant was placed at Serial No,
2. It is then stated by the appellant that somehow he came to know that Respondent No, 3 has no merits and he is not equipped with the requisite qualifications and he filed a representation on 4.4.2002 requesting the Chairman of Respondent No, 1 to reconsider the case of "Respondent No, 3." He stated in the said representation that the initial induction of Respondent No, 3 was based on his domicile of Baluchistan. He was appointed as an Assistant Director (BPS-17). He had failed in the written test conducted by Pakistan Computer Bureau. Still he was recruited. He proved to be a failure but managed to get a job in Management Services Wing, Cabinet Division, Islamabad. He was found unsuitable in an inquiry held by the said Bureau. From the said Management Services Wing the Respondent No, 3 was sent to Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights on deputatioon in BPS:18. He was charged with corruption and was sent back to his parent Department. He was then transferred to Establishment Division where he committed theft of magnetic record of All Pakistan Unified Officers Groups datal and spoiled the same. He was again repatriated to his parent Department. The said representation was rejected by the Respondent No, 1 vide letter a dated 4.5.2002 (Annex:-VII). Yet another letter was sent to him on 6.5.2002 (Annex:- VIII) informing him that he cannot be recommended for appointment to the said post. Thereafter he filed an application on 17.5.2002 to the President of Pakistan and another application on 27.5.2002 to the Secretary, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division but of no avail. He then filed yet another representation on 7.5.2002 on which no order was passed by Respondent No, 1 and as such no review had been filed. According to the appellant this appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.5.2002 treating the same as a final order. The main contention of the appellant is that whereas he has the relevant experience, the Respondent No, 3 has not.
3. The Respondent No, 3, on the other hand, in his written statement has explained that he had applied for appointment to the post of Computer Programmer (BPS-18) in Pakistan Computer Bureau, Cabinet Division, in response to a Consolidated Advertisement No, 30 of 1982 by the Respondent No,
1. He was interviewed by Respondent No, 1 and was recommended for appointment. He was appointed by the Cabinet Division to the said post vide notification dated 19.4.1983 (Annex:'H' to the written statement). Thereafter in response to yet another Advertisement No, 48 of 1984 issued by Respondent No, 1 he applied for appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Computer) and was selected. Thereafter he was relieved by the Cabinet Division and recruited in the then O&M Division to the said post. His assignment was as a Deputy Director and Incharge of the Computer Centre in the 0 & M Division of the Cabinet Secretariat w,e,f, 31.7.1086. This was vide notifications (Annex: 'N' and N1 to the written statement). He has denied the said allegation of corruption charges or theft of the Government records. On the other hand, he has stated that he was appointed as Director in the Law and Justice Division on 3.9.1999 under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act. Thereafter the Establishment Division required his services urgently and he was repatriated and had assumed charge in the Establishment Division vide notification dated 9.3.2000 (Appendix: `P') and that no charges were ever levelled against him. He stood reverted to the Establishment Division as Management Services Wing was merged with the said Division and Section 10 of the said Act ceased to apply. This was vide notification (Annex: 'T'). As to the said grounds, the Respondent No, 3 stated that he is holder of a Master's degree in Physics, it is the requisite qualification and that he also has the requisite experience.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that his client being holder of a Master's degree in Computer Science stands on a higher footing than the Respondent No, 3 who holds a degree in Physics. He has also tried to ague that the Respondent No, 3 does not have the requisite experience. Learned DAG states that the concerned Ministry i,e, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division has in its comments supported the appellant. However, at the same time, learned DAG informs that the proceedings were conducted by the learned Chairman of the Respondent No, 1, a learned Member, a Subject Specialist(Advisor) and an Additional Secretary of the said Department and the selection was unanimous. Learned Law Officer also states that the representation filed by the appellant was duly considered and the facts stated therein were got re-checked and re- verified and it was found that the facts stated therein are incorrect. Learned counsel for the Respondent No, 3 challenges the maintainability of the appeal. According to him, under the newly added provision in the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, a representation lies against rejection of candidature. In case the representation is rejected a review lies and the appeal has been provided against the decision of the Respondent No, 1 on the said review. According to the learned counsel, neither any representation nor any review was admittedly filed against any rejection of candidature and there being no order on review, the appeal would not be competent.
On merits he states that the Respondent No, 1 proceeded in accordance with the terms of the said Ordinance and the advertisement that was issued for inviting applications for the said appointment. He further adopts the contentions raised by the learned Deputy Attorney General.
5. I have gone through the file of this case and have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel and the learned Law Officer. Coming first to the said objection raised by the learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 I find that in terms of Section 7(3) (a) a representation has been provided to an aggrieved candidate, against any decision of the respondent-Commission. Learned counsel while referring to "rejection of candidature's probably has in mind the general instructions for candidates issued by the respondent-Commission. Be t1at as it may, there is no denial that a representation was filed. Now I find that vide Annex: `VI-A' the appellant represented against the pre-qualification of Respondent No, 3 for the requisite interview.
This is dated 4.4.2002. This was rejected vide letter dated 4.5.2002 (Annex:VII). The appellant then in response to said letter dated 4.5.2002 wrote Annex: VI-B on 7.5.2002. He insisted that he had not represented against the selection/nomination of Respondent No, 3 rather his pre-qualification for interview. The respondent-Commission, informed him on 6.5.2002 vide Annex: VIII that he cannot be recommended for appointment. Admittedly no representation and consequently no review was filed against the said decision conveyed to the appellant on 6.5.2002. This obviously means that he has accepted the decision of the respondent-Commission in refusing to recommend him for the said appointment. There is yet another aspect of this case, the appellant in the first instance on 1.6.2002 filed W.P. No, 1522/2002 in this Court and the prayer was that the recommendation of Respondent No, 3 by Respondent No, 1 be declared to be without lawful authority. This writ petition was withdrawn on 3.6.2002. Now in the present appeal as well the only prayer is that the nomination of Respondent No, 3 be annulled. The present appeal has been filed on 10.6.2002. Now it is the stance of the appellant himself in document Annex:VI-B dated 7.5.2002 that he is not questioning the nomination made by the Respondent No, 1 of Respondent No,
3. Needless to state that the appellant has not at all questioned the decision of the Respondent No, 1 refusing to recommend him. In this view of the matter, I do agree with the learned counsel of Respondent No 3 that the present appeal praying for annulment of the nomination of Respondent No, 3 is not competent inasmuch as no steps have been taken by the appellant on which an order could be passed under Section 7(3)(b) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 against which an appeal in terms of Section 7(3) (d) of the said Ordinance would lie.
6. Now so far as the experience is concerned, vide notification dated 14.4:1983 (Annex: 'H' to the written statement) the Respondent No, 2 was appointed as a Programmer in the Pakistan Computer Bureau with effect from 26.3.1983. Thereafter he was appointed as a Deputy Director in the 0 and M Division. According to Annexure 'I' to the comments filed by the respondent- Commission the said Wing has a major computer installation since 1985 used for system analysis, designing and programming of applications for client organizations. To my mind the Respondent No, 3 had the requisite experience on the date he applied for the said post. Besides he was interviewed by a panel comprising of the learned Chairman and Member of the respondent- Commission as also an Expert and was found to be fit for appointment to the said post.
7. Now coming to the comments filed by the Respondent No, 2, on which main reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant. It has been stated therein that it is believed that the qualifications and experience of Respondent No, 3 were not relevant and that an inquiry of irregularities in purchase of computers worth at Rs, 2.6 Million was conducted against Respondent No, 3 and due to the involvement in the case he was repatriated to the Establishment Division. I am afraid no such order has been placed on record by the said respondent or by the learned Deputy Attorney General. Besides, as stated by me above, an officer of the rank of Additional Secretary of Respondent No, 2 was a Member of the panel who interviewed the three candidates and awarded maximum marks to the Respondent No,
3. The said comments, therefore, would be of no avail to the appellant.
8. For all that has been discussed above, this FAO is found to be without any force and is accordingly dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.