Mehta K.N. Kohli, 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 this circumstances it is prayed that the Honourable Court be pleased to declare the Orders 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 Jung on 15.5.2003 application 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 on 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.
(viii) That the candidate must be having FA/FSC between the age of 18 to 35 and in case of Government servant the age will be of 40 years.
3. The record shows that after having filed applications tests and interviews were conducted; merit list was prepared, which has been admitted by the official respondents. The said list is reproduced here-in-below:-- Award List Test Interview. J.E.T. (female) Government Girls School District Sibi, Held on 28th May, 2003.
S.No,Name Father's. NameWritten TestOral TestTotalRemarks Ghazala ShaheenSalamat Ali2 s 20 44 Pass
2. Fouzia Khan urnSly. Ramzan20 23 l3 Pass
3. Aisha SelachiMir Muhammad Khan33 , 07 40 Pass
4. Hurmat BihiMir Ahmed Khan33 06 39 Pass
5. Alia 1(411Nasruddin Iqbal21 18 39 Pass Azeem
6. ShaziaMuhammad Alam21 16 37 Pass Kauser
4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ghazala Shaheen at S. No, 1 was appointed. However, his 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 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 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 Thalli, which is 25 Kilometer 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 with 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 contained more higher marks and was due to some error 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 contemplate 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 counsels for the parties and perused the record. We had also called 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 (CS) Page
524. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan are reproduced as under: "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at same 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 for examination is that petitioner is resident of Sibi, which is 25 miles away from Tehsil Thalli while Respondent No, 1 is a permanent resident of Tehsil Thalli 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. no material on record has been placed to substantiate the same, and thus arguments of the counsel for 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, stistainable.
In view of the above staled reasons; the petition has no Merit, which is dismissed with no Order as to cost.