HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.- The backdrop of this writ petition is that some posts of Subject Specialists in Math were required to' be filled by Punjab Public Service Commission through advertisement dated 18-2-2007, in response to which petitioner applied mentioning specifically in her application that the result of University Examination was awaited. The petitioner, as required, appeared in the written test held on 28-11-2007, she was declared successful vide notice dated 22-3-2008 and then a letter dated 11-4-2008 was issued directing her to appear in the interview on 06-5-2008 before the Punjab Public Service Commission. Thereafter through a subsequent letter dated 19-4-2008 the petitioner was informed that she cannot participate in the interview due to academically not qualified and the call letter was withdrawn.
2. Aggrieved by the letter dated 19-4-2008, whereby the interview call was cancelled/withdrawn, the petitioner filed a representation before the Punjab Public Service Commission which was declined through letter dated 02-5-2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the advertised post without concealing any fact rather mentioning specifically that she is waiting result of the University examination, her application alongwith the documents was examined by the Punjab Public Service Commission and then she was called for written test where she appeared and qualified the same and then a call letter was issued for interview to her. However, later on the development in the form of cancellation of interview letter smells mala fide and arbitrariness, hence calls for interference by this Court.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the writ is not competent against the Punjab Public Service Commission in the process of recruitment. Further submits that it is the domain of the Public Service Commission to assess the eligibility and determine the suitability of the candidate and not of the Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Service Commission submits that Government of Punjab sent a requisition for recruitment to 17 posts of Subject Specialist in Mathematics (Female) on contract basis for a period of five years. The posts were advertised on 18-2-2007 with the closing date of 12-3-2007, in response to the advertisement 582 applications were received, written test was held on 28-11-2007 and the petitioner was also allowed provisionally to appear in the written test with a condition that, "If you are found ineligible later on at any stage for any reason, your candidature will be cancelled and your application shall stand rejected irrespective of your qualifying the test/ interview".
5. As a result of written test, 30 candidates were cleared including the petitioner and they were called for interview through call letters. So far the petitioner is concerned, she mentioned in her application form that she obtained 792 out of 1200 marks in Part-I and 938 out of 1200 marks in Part-II of M.Sc. Mathematics, respectively and she produced the transcript of M.Sc. Mathematics on 15-4- 2008. Despite that the interview was going to be held on 06-5-2008, the petitioner was found ineligible on the ground that closing date for submission of transcripts/complete applications was 12-3-2007 and the petitioner's result was declared in July, 2007 and as such no injustice was done with the petitioner rather the Commission adhered to its own instructions for the determination of eligibility of the candidate. Further submits that the Commission had already sent recommendations in respect of those 17 posts and the Government had already issued appointment letters to the recommendees, hence the writ petition being an academic exercise cannot be entertained.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. It is a case of real hardship, which is practically an outcome of irregularities committed by the functionaries of the Punjab Public Service Commission on whose hands the petitioner is victimized with no fault of her.
8. Record produced by the representative of the Commission clearly reveals that the petitioner applied against the post of Subject Specialist in Mathematics in pursuance of advertisement in the press dated 18-2-2007 with the closing date of 12-3-2007 meaning thereby that before closing date the petitioner applied for the said post, she did not conceal anything from the Commission rather specifically mentioned that the result is in waiting, the result was declared in July 2007, whereas the Commission after going through the entire contents of the petitioner's application issued a letter for appearance in the written test, which was held on 28-11-2007, meaning thereby that at the time of written test the petitioner had already passed M.Sc. Mathematics and her result had already been declared in July, 2007 and this very fact is confirmed in the report filed by the Punjab Public Service Commission before this Court.
9. The petitioner did qualify the written test and then an interview call was issued to her resulting into accrual of a lawful right in her favour for appearance in the interview alongwith others but unfortunately this interview call letter was subsequently cancelled in a mechanical manner without application of independent mind and without issuance of any show-cause notice and even without hearing the petitioner. So much so when represented against this unlawful action of the Commission, the authority who declined the petitioner's request, did not adhere to the ground reality that in the entire exercise petitioner could not be found at fault rather the action of the functionaries of the Commission is against all canons of justice, equity and law, resulting into a serious miscarriage of justice, ruining the petitioner's future career who otherwise was a legitimate expectant for the appointment in question.
10. So far the objection of maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, suffice it to refer the law laid down in the cases of Atta Ullah Mehr v. Punjab Public Service Commission (1983 CLC 2903) and Ahmed Sultan Wans V. Punjab Public Service Commission (PLD 1997 SC 382).
11. In a recent judgment reported as Secretary Revenue Division V. Muhammad Saleem (2008 SCM R 948) it is held that, "Jurisdictions vested with apex and superior Courts are general, wider in scope and extent, while constraints/prohibitions are narrower in their applications and dimensions-Jurisdiction of superior Courts is to be stretched to take into its folds all disputes to be resolved while limitation of jurisdictions and powers are to be squeezed and kept to minimum extent and length-Such is the rule of interpretation of Jurisdiction, scope and limitations of superior Courts in Pakistan."
12. Taking strength from the law laid down supra, the letters dated 19-4-2008 and 02-5-2008 are held to be the result of inaction/irregularities committed by the functionaries of Punjab Public Service Commission and are declared illegal, unlawful and having no legal effect. The petitioner is accordingly held to be entitled for interview before the Punjab Public Service Commission, however, it is upto the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to rectify the wrong to accommodate the petitioner taking all steps within a period of one month from the receipt of this order.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.