MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Mr. Furrukh Javaid Kazi qualified at the competitive examination held by Federal Public Service Commission in 1975. He was placed 38th in the merit list of 216 qualified candidates. As a result he was selected a probationer in Federal Grade 17. He joined academy for Administrative Training in due course.
2. On 2-7-1978, Deputy Director Studies at the Academy informed the appellant along with others that choice about allocation to various occupational groups be intimated in order of preference.
The appellant's first choice was for District Management Group and last, of the Office Management Group. To his surprise he found himself with the last occupa--tional group of his choice.
3. Aggrieved by this allocation, the appellant submitted a representa--tion to the President of Pakistan which was withheld. Hence this appeal.
4. It is contended that allocations of probationers to various occupa--tional groups are made jointly by the Establishment Division and the Federal Public Service Commission on the basis of the combined order of merit merging from the three exercises namely:
(i) Results of the competitive Examination.
(ii) Academy evaluation.
(iii) FPOE and
(iv) Provincial Quotas.
5. It is urged by the appellant that he having obtained 1400 marks in the competitive examination, 300 in Academy evaluation and 1100 in FPOE, was entitled to allocation ilk the District Management Group.
6. This was objected to, by the respondent on two grounds :--
(i) Allocation of probationer to various occupational groups being absolutely in the discretion of the Government, appellant's acceptance of the terms and conditions laid down in the offer of appointment debars any legal action, nor is there any violation of right.
(ii) That appeal is hit by proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 "as no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or promoted to a higher grade."
7. The reply places reliance on the offer of appointment given to the appellant vide letter dated 18- 1-1978. Its clause (2) has a note appended thereto read as under :- "Allocation to different Group is made by Government on the basis of the performance and aptitude of the candidates, the preferences indicated by them in their application to the Commission, and considerations of Provincial regional quotas. No representation will be entertained against the decision of the Government in regard to allocation of a candidate of a particular post."
8. The appellant having accepted the offer is bound to abide by this note. He has no right to challenge this allocation, solely within discretion of the departmental authority. The appellant therefore, is denied the privilege of either a representation or an appeal. Discretion given to a particular authority, is unchallengeable in any Court of law unless the order is considered to be without jurisdiction or mala fide.
9. In the present case encumberances mentioned have not been brought out. In fact the order is passed on his, assessm ent at the Academy. "Mr. Farrukh Javed Kazi is a timid but ambitious person.
Occasionally he gives indications of having some kind of psychological problem. He has an inquisitive and probing mind and may serve as good Investigating Officer. His general assessment could be placed at marginal average".
10. Director-General confirmed the report in following words :- "A good assessm ent by the Group-in-charge. A somewhat complex personality and something of an introvert. During his District study tour it was observed that he was somewhat timid and could even tell lies occasionally. There were also problems of adjustment to conditions in the district.
Good in Academic work he produced a very good Research Paper; but his District report was below my expectations. Lost six placed after the Academy training. Would make a better secretariat than a field officer."
11. On the basis of this report and taking into consideration his marks and province of domicile, he was allocated to Secretariat Group. The report self-evidently limited choice to Secretariat Group.
Consequently no injustice has been done.
12. Besides allocation to a particular group is determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post. This has been specifically excluded from jurisdiction of the Tribunal by section 4(1)
(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently the appeal hit by offer of appointment and statutory provision, is not maintainable. It is dismissed with cost of Rs. 100.
Parties be informed accordingly.