' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The petitioner feels aggrieved of the appointments of respondents Nos.8 and 9 as Assistant Professor on contract basis pursuant to recommendations by a Special Selection Board.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No,1 took all steps to ensure that respondents Nos.8 and 9 qualified for the said appointment in preference to the petitioner. He further contends that the Board was not validly constituted inasmuch as private Doctor was not made a member of the same. Further contention is that the petitioner was more qualified and much better on merits in preference to the said respondents-ladies for the said appointment but by maneouvring the process of interview more marks were awarded to the said ladies and they were appointed.
3. Sh. Sajjad Ahmed, learned counsel for the official-respondents contends that bona fide steps were taken and, in fact, a renowned private practitioner was requested after prior intimation to join the proceedings. However, for some reasons the said private practitioner could not attend the meeting. The learned counsel contends that no quoram having been prescribed, the proceedings conducted by 5 out of the six notified members cannot be set at naught for the said reason. He vehemently denies the allegation that respondent No,1 had any role to play, maliciously or otherwise in ,the matter of the process of the said interview and consequent appointments which were strictly made according to the recommendations of the said Special Board. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Rajwana, Advocate/learned counsel for respondent No,8 refers to the contents of his reply and the accompanying documents to assert that his client is better qualified and better experienced than the petitioner.
4. I may note here that the respondent No,9 has also filed a reply with her credentials.
5. I have gone through the file of this case including the respective pleadings of the relevant parties. The prescribed qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor are M.B.,B.S., F.C.P.S. Or alternate degrees mentioned therein. There is a note that credit will be given for original research work in a standard medical, general and teaching experience in a recognized institution.
' Now so far as the said minimum educational qualifications are concerned, all the parties i,e, the petitioner and the respondents Nos.8 and 9 are at par. So far as the said experience is concerned, I find from the respective C.Vs. Attached with their respective pleadings for the parties that there is no mention of a teaching assignment. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the post of a Senior Registrar is considered as a teaching post. If this is so, then I find that the respondents-ladies have more experience as Senior Registrar than the petitioner. When confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the respondent No,1 manoeuvred the matter in a manner that the respondent-ladies came to acquire more experience than his client. I am afraid the said contention has no force. The respondent No,9 has an experience of 2 years and 6 months, respondent No,8 one year and 6 months while the petitioner one year. It is hard to believe that the things were kept pending. In such a long period to enable the said ladies to get the said appointment.
7. Now coming to the second contention of the learned counsel as to the constitution of the Special Board, as per notification (Annex: 'A'), the Special Board is to comprise of the Principal of the institution as the Chairman, a Professor of concerned specialty, a retired Professor of the concerned specialty, a representative of the Health Department, a member of the Punjab Public Service Commission and a general practitioner from the private sector as members. Now there is no denial that the Board which interviewed and evaluated the petitioner and respondents Nos.8 and 9 did comprise of 5 of the said persons but did not comprise a general practitioner from the private sector. To my mind, the omission has been sufficiently explained by respondents Nos.1 and
5. According to them, Dr. Kausar Nasir a general practitioner of repute was intimated of the date of interview i,e, 11-4-2005, of the time and the venue vide letter dated 26-3-2005 which was duly received by the said Doctor with a request to attend the said meeting. However, he did not do so.
No consequences are provided for the absence of one or for that matter more than one member of the said Board.
8. Mr. Rajwana refers to some statutory provisions in pari materia including the Provincial Appointment Rules to urge that a vacancy or an absence in the Selection Board or Committee would not render the proceedings as void. I, therefore, do find that the said absence of the general practitioner would not render the proceedings of the otherwise duly constituted Board to be void.
9. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed in limine.