' Pursuant to the policy decision of the Government of Punjab the Population Welfare Department decided to recruit 779 Male Mobilizers in the 34 Districts of Punjab, 46 of them were to be recruited in Sheikhupura District. Advertisement dated 3-3-2005 appeared in the daily `Nawa-i-Waqt' pursuant to which Muhammad Asad Butt the petitioner who was a graduate and resident of Union Council No.82 Tibbi Hamboo applied for the said post. Since he was not selected he has filed the present petition. Seeking the appointment of respondent No.3 as illegal and for a direction to respondent No.1 for his appointment.
' In almost like circumstances Muzafar Ali a graduate and resident of Village Mangat in Union Council Rehman Abad also applied for the similar post and since he was not selected he has filed W.P. No.4981 of 2005 seeking the appointment of respondent No.3 as illegal and for a direction to respondent No.1 for his appointment. Both these petitions have been argued together by the learned counsel and are proposed to be decided through this order.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in presence of a graduate candidate no Intermediate candidate could be selected and that the whole process of selection was result of nepotism and corruption, which is liable to be set aside as was done by this Court in Atta Ullah Mehr v. Punjab Govt. (1983 CLC 2903), and Rao Manzoor ul Hague Khan v. Headmaster, Government High School, Handal, Tehsil and District Kasur and 7 others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 1080).
' The learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab on the other hand .Supports the stance taken by the Department in the comments and contends that the entire process of selection was transparent, which was made keeping in view the nature of the duty to be performed and was target oriented. Hi has produced the original file of the , Selection Committee.
3. The selection process was undertaken by a three-member Committee headed by the District Population Welfare Officer of the District. Though a serious exception has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the stance taken in the parawise comments that the contents of the same were misleading yet in order to satisfy myself I have gone through the original file and considered the assessm ent made and remarks of each member of the Selection Committee. The individual marking/assessm ent made and remarks recorded by the Members of the Committee support the decision of the Appointing Authority for non-selection of the petitioners. Their non- selection for the job was the result of consistent view of all the Members of the Committee.
' Suffice it to observe that for every selection to a particular post the job requirement has to be kept in view by the Appointing Authority. The post for which the petitioners herein had applied was of Male Mobilizers. It certainly was an object and target oriented job. The function and duty to be performed by a Mobilizer was to muster, marshal, organize, initiate and to activate. The petitioners might have better qualifications and thought of themselves to be better qualified but due to the job requirement the Appointing Authority did not find them suitable and fit for the job. Besides that the Court is not in a position to substitute its own assessment and view for that of the criteria followed and adopted by the Appointing Authority, it has been found that the selection process was carried out in a fair and transparent manner. It may be mentioned that according to the eligibility criteria Intermediate candidate could also be considered. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners thus have no real substance and deserve to be repelled.
In view of the above both these petitions are dismissed.