Salim Khan, J.--The petitioner contended that he applied for a post of CT for which the prescribed qualifications were FA alongwith professional CT course, that the petitioner was declared successful and included in the list of successful candidates. that the petitioner had qualifications of MA Urdu. PTC. CT and B.Ed. that the persons appointed to the vacancies were directed ',to join their posts by 1.3.2005 positively otherwise their appointment shall stand cancelled and the individual next on merit will be appointed in his/her place. The petitioner contended that appointees at S. Nos,
4. 5, 6, 17 and 24 did not joint the service and their appointments stood cancelled, and the post became vacant on 1.3.2005, but the petitioner was not appointed against one of the said vacancies, inspite of the fact that he had qualified the test and interview. The copy of office order regarding the appointment of certain persons has been placed on the file as annexure B, where Condition No, 3 is recorded to the effect that the appointees should join their posts by 1.3.2005 positively otherwise the appointment shall stand cancelled and the individual next on merit will be appointed in his/her place.
2. Comments of Respondents Nos, 3 and 4 were obtained, wherein they mentioned that the petitioner falls at S. No, 156 with his session of 1998 and his merit score is 37.25, while candidates upto S. No, 27 with session upto 1992 were appointed against the available vacancies of CT. It was 'contended that the batch of the petitioner, being of 1998 was a very late batch and it was not, possible to appoint the petitioner. It was further mentioned that fresh appointments were in process and the vacancies had been advertised through the press, and if the petitioner has applied for the same and comes on inherit as per recruitment policy of the Government of NWFP, he will be appointed without any discrimination. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the said contention and took up the stand that the petitioner had higher professional qualification of B.Ed. but the marks for the same were not allotted to him.
3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and of the Deputy Advocate General assisted by the representative of the department, and perused the record.
4. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his batch of CT Course was of 1998, rather this fact was admitted by the, petitioner in para 4 of his petition It has clearly been stated by the respondents that the batch of the appointed persons was upto S. No, 27 of 1992, and the batch of the petitioner was very late. This contention of the respondents could not be rebutted by the petitioner during the arguments. It was further contended that the serial number of the petitioner was 156 with session of 1998 while candidates upto S. No, 27 'of 1992 have been appointed. This contention of the respondents also could not be rebutted by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the other candidates of the batches from the year 1992 to 1997, and the candidates senior to the petitioner of 1998 batch have not come forward to seek any remedy, therefore, the petitioner has a right to be appointed against one of the vacancies. The learned D.A.G. replied that the candidates of the batches mentioned above, who have not yet been appointed, did not come forward because they did not have any grievance till now for the reason that they have not been superseded, and that the petitioner also does not have a grievance and a cause of action. This contention of the learned D.A.G. is correct. The candidates of the batch of 1992 and 1993 would have a cause of action and grievance if they were not appointed on their turn, if they had qualified after test and interview and other formalities for appointment. The present petitioner does not have any cause of action for the time being and is not an aggrieved person. Further more, the entitled persons, even if they are not available before the Court, do not lose their rights which accrued to them as a consequence of a judgment of a Court of law due to their equality with those who were available before the Court and a judgment in rim has been passed in their favour. On just coming to the Court with a petition, without any cause of action and a grievance, the petitioner does not become entitled to snatch the rights from those entitled persons who are not available before the Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the marks for B. Ed. qualification were not granted to him, and, therefore, he was shown to have obtained less marks. The learned D.A.G., with the assistance of the representatives of the department produced the record, which was shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Court, that marks for B.A. and M.A. were granted to the petitioner besides the marks for the CT. B.Ed. was never a prescribed qualification for the CT post and, therefore, was not a higher qualification for such posts. B.Ed. course is a prescribed qualification for certain other posts, but is not suitable qualification for CT posts. It may be mentioned here that PST posts are for primary school purposes, CT posts are for next higher classes, while B.Ed. is a qualification course for major students. The words "prescribed qualifications, higher qualifications, minimum qualification and maximum qualifications" were discussed. The prescribed qualifications are those which are prescribed by the employing recruiting authority for certain posts, without which a candidate would not be eligible, even, to apply for such posts. Such qualifications are minimum, qualifications for such posts, According to the policy of the Government, persons of higher qualifications are not debarred from applying and contesting for the posts for which lower qualifications have been prescribed. It is according to the policy of the Government to declare whether extra marks would or would not be allocated to the person having higher qualifications. In this case, however, it was prescribed that extra marks would be allocated to the candidates having B.A. or M.A. qualifications and extra marks were allocated to the petitioner also for his B.A. and M.A. qualifications. B.Ed. was neither a prescribed qualification nor a higher qualification for the purposes of CT posts, and consequently, the respondents have not allotted any extra marks to the petitioner accordingly.
6. The above discussion brings us to the conclusion that the petitioner has no cause of action and is not an aggrieved person. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition and we dismiss the same accordingly.