' In the criteria laid down for recruitment to the posts of Elementary School Educators and published in the national press minimum qualification prescribed is B.A./B.Sc., P.T.C. The petitioner herein.
Claims that he is P.T.C. But not B.A/B.Sc. It is his grievance that although he holds P.T.C. Qualification, but has been rendered ineligible for the post in view of enhancement of qualifications as B.A./B.Sc.
He has approached this Court that such a recruitment policy has operated to the prejudice of the petitioner and many others like him which has caused a great disappointment to them and that such action is violative of Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He seeks a direction to the respondent "to provide job opportunity to the petitioner as well as all other holders of PT Certificates."
2. The learned counsel contends that the recruitment policy is unfair which deprives the petitioner the employment which is the duty of the State to provide. Reference has been made by him to Shaukat Ali and others v. Government of Pakistan through Chairman, Ministry of Railways and others (PLD 1997 SC 342) and Malik Niaz Muhammad v. Provincial Transport Authority and others (1989 SCM R 790).
Report and parawise comments sent from the respondent have been received. It is stated therein that the basic qualification for appointment as P.T.C. Teacher was Matric, P.T.C. Which was enhanced as F.A./F.Sc. P.T.C. w.e.f. 12=2-1997 and that in the year 2002, the nomenclature of P.T.C.
Post was changed as Elementary School Educator (ESE) for which the basic qualification was prescribed as B.A./B.Sc. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the Government is fully competent and vested with the power to change, revise and enhance the qualification in the recruitment criteria.
3. The respective contentions of the learned counsel have been considered. There is no dispute that in the past basic qualification for appointment as P.T.C. Teacher was Matric P.T.C. Which was enhanced thereafter to F.A./F.Sc. P.T.C. And finally as B.A./B.Sc., P.T.C. Such improvement and enhancement is for the betterment of standard of education at the primary level. There cannot be any other opinion, that the executive Government is fully competent to make such a change in the qualification for a particular post. In Falak Sher Khan and another v. A Mukhtar Ahmad and others (PLD 1989 SC 262) it was held that the Government was entitled to make rules in the interest of efficiency of service and such rules could be changed and no one could make a grievance of any such change brought about determining the eligibility criteria. There has been a consistent view of the Supreme Court that conditions, qualifications and criteria prevailing at the time of appointment are to be taken into consideration and not what were in the past. Reference in this context may be made to Dr. Habibur Rehman v. The West Pakistan Public Service Commission, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1973 SC 144), Government of N.-W.F.P. Health and Social Welfare Department v. Dr. Sheikh Muzaffar Iqbal and others (1990 SCM R 1524) and Mustaq Ahmad Mohal and others v. The A Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (1997 SCM R 1043). The legal position thus being quite consistent and free of obscurity, the question of discriminatory treatment to th$ petitioner hardly arises. In the context of the controversy, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not advance the case of the petitioner.
' In view of the above, the petition is bereft of merit which is dismissed accordingly.