' MEHTA K.N. KOHBI, J---This petition has called in question order of Appointment dated 14-6-2004 passed by respondent No.2 (Executive District Officer Education, Sibi) and following prayer has been sought:-- "In these circumstances it is prayed that the Honourable Court be pleased to declare the order dated 14-6-2004 passed by respondent No.2 appointing the respondent No.1 as J.E.T. Government Girls Middle School Talli District Sibi as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and order the respondent No.2 to dispose off the application of the petitioner dated 10-6-2004 according to merit list."
2. Facts of the case are that vide publication made in Daily Jang on 15-5-2003 applications were invited for appointment of JET Teachers in BPS-9 by Director Education (School). The said publication contemplates following terms and conditions:--
(i) That the appointment will be made for a period of three years on contract basis; however, on satisfactory performance is extendable.
(ii) That the appointed teachers shall be posted at a particular place where they will have to perform three years' services; however, they will not be entitled to seek transfer to any other place.
(iii) That the teachers will be appointed on the basis of merit through tests.
(iv) That the teachers appointed could resign from service on giving one month notice. Similarly the Government of issuing one month notice could also terminate the services of the teacher.
(v) That the appointed teachers shall be entitled to pay as the other teachers are entitled.
(vi) That for appointment of said post the intended applicants shall be local or domicile of the said District and will be residents of same area. In case of non-availability of candidate from the same area/place the candidate from nearer place/area will be given preference.
(vii) That the candidate must be having F.A./F.S.c between the age of 18 to 35 and in case of Government servant the age will be of 40 years.
3. The record sho after having filed applications tests and interviews were conduceed; nerit list was prepared, which has been admitted by the official respondents. The said list is reproduced here- inbelow: -- Award List Test Interview J.E.T. (female) Government Girls School District Sibi, Held on 28th May, 2003.
S.No.Name Father'sName WrittenTestOralTestTotalRemarks 1 GhazalaShaheenSalamat Ali 24 20 44 Pass 2 FouziaKhanum Sh. Ramzan 20 23 43 Pass 3 Aisha Selachi Mir MuhammadKhan33 07 40 Pass 4 Hurmat Bibi Mir Ahmed Khan 33 06 39 Pass 5 Alia Iqbal Nasruddin Iqbal Azeem21 18 39 Pass
6. Shazia Kauser Muhammad Alam 21 16 37 Pass
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ghazala Shaheen at S.No.1 was appointed. However, her services were terminated w.e.f. 1-6-2004 as she was not found to be eligible as her domicile certificate was found bogus vide order dated 14-6-2004. Respondent No.1, who was at S. No.3 of the Merit List was appointed in her place. It has been stated by the petitioner that she was at S.No.2 and has been ignored with mala fides as District. Executive Officer (Male) Sibi is related to the respondent No. 1.
5. The petition was admitted for regular hearing and counter-affidavit's have been filed by the respondents separately. The counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed being higher in merit list i.e. At S.No.2 and she has been unnecessarily ignored. It is worthwhile to point out that the posts pertain to JET Girls High School Tehsil Talli, which is 25 kilometres away from Sibi. It has been admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Sibi. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the change in the Merit List has been made mala fide and numbers of respondent have been altered to the disadvantage of petitioner, who has been deprived of entitlement for no reason.
Counsel for the respondent as well as Assistant Advocate-General have contended that on examination of the merit list respondent No.1 had obtained more higher marks and due to some errer of calculation has been placed at S.No.3, who should had been at S.No.2. It has further been contended that the said notice clearly contemplates that preference shall be given to the candidate, who is resident of the same area/place.
6. We have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have pursued the record. We had also called for the original Award List prepared by the Department and examined the same. The first question arises for examination as to whether petitioner can claim the said post as matter of right and invoke the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. It is to point out that mere passing of examination or test would not confer a right on the petitioner to claim appointment of the said particular post, unless the Appointing Authority passes some order. We are fortified with the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in (PLC 2003 (C.S.)
Page 524). The relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan are reproduced as under:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. In our view the High Court was right in holding that mere selection by the Selection Board does not confer a right on the petitioner to be appointed to the post in dispute when his selection was not approved by the Appointing Authority."
7. In such view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no legal vested right to claim appointment of particular post as observed earlier and thus the present petition is legally not competent. The next question of examination is that petitioner is resident of Sibi, which is 25 miles away from Tehsil Talli while respondent No.1 is a permanent resident of Tehsil Talli and is local inhabitant of the area. The Authorities while appointing appears to have considered the permanent residents where the said school for which post was advertised is situated. The petitioner could not have been considered for the said post, in case if the candidate from the same area/place is available. Respondent No.1 belongs to the same area and is a resident of the same place was entitled to have preference over the other candidates and was required to be appointed in view of Clause (vi) of the terms and conditions of appointment. So far as the question of mala fide alleged against the respondent No.2, is concermed no material on record his been placed to substantiate the same, and thus arguments of the counsel of the petitioner may not be found to be correct to that extent. No illegality or irregularity or error of jurisdiction has been pointed out and thus petition is not sustainable.
' In view of the above stated reasons; the petition has no merit, which is dismissed with no order as to cost.