SALIM KHAN, J.---This Contempt of Court Petition No.9 of 2006 was brought by Muhammad Zahid and Ahmad Nawaz against the Director of Schools and Literacy, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar, Jamshaid Khan Additional Director (Schools and Literacy), N.-VJ.F.P. Peshawar and Waheedullah, Khan, Assistant Director, Litigation, Office of Director Schools and Literacy, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar. It is worth mentioning at this stage that neither Jamshaid Khan nor Waheedullah Khan were party to the previous litigation between the present petitioners and the respondent No.1, and they were asked by the respondent No.1 to become the members of a committee, instead of respondent No.1, to conduct the proceedings of the committee as directed by this Court.
2. The petitioners contended that this Court announced its judgment on 22-3-2005 and directed the Director Schools and Literacy to reassess recheck and make re-marking according to the applications accompanied by the testimonials of the petitioners. It was further contended that the petitioners submitted that documents/testimonials before the committee and, as a result of this, the petitioners stood higher in merits than candidates at S.Nos.15 to 25 of the merit list, as in this way they secured higher marks than such candidates, but on, preparation of report on completion of the task, the committee expressed its inability to consider the documents/certificates etc. Produced by the petitioners on the pretext "that it is not possible at this stage to consider the certificate/ qualification to avoid complication". The petitioners were of the' view that, in this way, the respondents committed contempt of Court. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 submitted their reply to which the rejoinder was filed.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Deputy Advocate-General and perused the record.
4. In order to properly appreciate the facts of the case, it is necessary to quote the relevant part of the judgment of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.166 of 2004 on 22-3-2005 as follows: "(4) Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of in terms, that the Director of Schools and Literacy N.-W.F.P. Peshawar shall himself or depute any senior officer next to him scrutinize the entire record in respect of the present controversy and the same be checked, reassessed, remarking be made according to the applications accompanied by testimonials of the petitioners and the respondents who have been appointed. It shall be done by the committee headed by the Director Education or his nominee, the E.D.O. S&L, and the petitioners shall also be given a chance of hearing and right of audience at the time of scrutiny and examination and re-calculation/marking..."
5. The petitioners contended that they submitted further documents to the committee but those were not accepted. There is nothing in order of this Court to permit the petitioners to submit additional documents to the committee. The exact words written in the judgment itself are "applications accompanied by testimonials of the petitioners and the respondents who have been appointed". It clearly meant that only those testimonials were to be taken into consideration which accompanied the applications. The exercise of selecting and appointing candidates was complete on the basis of the available record at the time of such exercise, to which the petitioners had objection, and that exercise was to be rechecked. A closed chapter of submitting testimonials for the purposes of proving eligibility could not be reopened and was not reopened, rather it was only rechecked.
6. A time bound schedule for submission of applications and documents is advertised. The candidates are bound to submit their documents within that period. Their eligibility is checked on the basis of such record, and calls for test/interview are issued to the eligible candidates accordingly. Marking is made in case of each candidate for his result in the test/interview and for his qualifications as shown by him through his application and testimonials. The candidate himself makes the representative of the employing authority to believe that the candidate had the only qualifications which he had shown. After completion of the exercise, certain rights of preference and appointment accrue to other persons, which cannot be snatched by the turn or afterthought of a candidate at later stage. Allowing the use of such turn or afterthought will make the whole exercise shaky, unreliable and inconclusive.
7. In these circumstances, we are of the view that none of the respondents have, intentionally or unintentionally, committed any contempt of this Court, rather, even, the mind of the respondents tending to that aspect has not been shown to be existing at any time.
8. We do not find any merit in the present petition which is hereby dismissed.
Announced.