' Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to declare the merit list of all the candidates who appeared for interview as illegal. It is further prayed that appointment of respondent No.6 (who was later on substituted with respondent No.7) may also be declared as null and void as he has not been appointed after following due procedure. It is also prayed that 10 marks for interview without mentioning the criteria for interview being very high may be deleted from the criteria for the selection as grant of the same illegally amounts to give favour to anyone in a close competition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Board of Revenue Punjab through Memo. No. 3888- 2002/1473-E(M), dated 6-8-2002 relaxed ban on recruitment of Patwaris and allowed to fill 50% vacant posts of Patwaries according to the criteria given in the said memo. Advertisement was published in the newspapers by the Director Lands Record, Board of Revenue, Punjab, requiring the interested Patwar candidates to file applications with the office of concerned Deputy District Officers (Revenue) from 7th to 21st August, 2002 along with complete particulars. The petitioner along with others applied for the same and was interviewed but he could not be selected. The grievance voiced by the petitioner through this writ petition is that although he was better qualified and obtained 70 marks in this regard but he was awarded two marks in the interview illegally only to accommodate respondent No.7 who was granted 7 marks in the interview. According to the petitioner no criteria was laid down for awarding marks to the candidates in the interview and that the posts were to be filled on Province basis and not region-wise.
3. The comments were filed by respondents Nos.3 to 5. It was specifically mentioned therein that in the Memo., dated 6-8-2002 issued by the Board of Revenue, the criteria was duly provided and only five posts were to be filled in respect of Tehsil Chichawatni.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, under the political influence, was wrongly ousted from the process of appointment of Patwaries in spite of that he passed Patwar course in the year, 1997 and also obtained 70 marks on qualification criteria but he was awarded only two marks in the intervie whereas respondent No.7 who obtained 67 marks on qualification basis was awarded 7 marks in the interview illegally only to accommodate him and thereby the petitioner was deprived of his appointment despite better qualified. Relies upon Ejaz Ahmad Minhas v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others (1994 MLD page 1650) and Vikram Singh ' and another v. The Subordinate Service Selection Board Haryana and others (AIR 1991 SC Page 1011).
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.7 contends that this Court cannot assume the role of Selection Committee and cannot declare that the Selection Committee awarded numbers of interview to respondent. No.7 illegally, which even otherwise were granted to all the candidates according to their abilities and there being no specific allegation of mala fide or political influence against the members of Selection Committee general and vague allegations are not sufficient to interfere in the selection process of the candidates made after due process.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 5 also opposes this petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the contents of this petition as well as report and parawise comments. Specific allegation has not been levelled against the members of the Selection Committee for ousting the petitioner from the selection process by giving him two marks in the interview when he had already obtained I70 marks on qualification basis. The mala fides should be specific. It has been laid down in Saeed Ahmad's case (PLD 1974 SC 151) that general and vague allegation of mala fides is not sufficient to interfere in the selection process. On the other hand Selection Committee was only. Given a limited scope to award 10 marks out of 100 on interview basis while 88 marks were to be obtained by the candidates on qualification basis and two marks were reserved for Hafiz-e-Quran. The petitioner obtained 70 marks on qualification basis and two marks in the interview while respondent No.7 obtained 67 marks on qualification basis and 7 marks in the interview. There is nothing on the record to show that these marks were granted to respondent No.7 with mala fide intention and ulterior motive or that these marks could not be granted to him. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in Syed Muhammad Raza v. General Manager WAPDA and others (1994 MLD page 1647) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the said case 100 marks were reserved for interview which were declared to have affected the result materially.
Similarly AIR 1991 SC 1011 is also not applicable as 28.5% marks for interview were reserved in the said case but in the present case only 10 marks were reserved for interview to be marked by the Interview Committee while 88 marks were to be awarded on qualification basis plus 2 marks for Hafiz-i-Quran. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no criteria was laid down about grant of marks for interview as in the Memo. Referred to above, pursuant to which selection process was initiated, 10 marks were specifically reserved for interview and after accepting the same the petitioner had joined the said proceedings
8. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition having no merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.