1. Mehta Kailash Nath Kohli, J.--Facts of the case, in brief, are that and advertisement was published in newspaper for appointment of junior clerks and class-IV staff in Board of Revenue Dep artment, Quetta; pursuant to said advertisement, petitioners' sons appeared in test and interview. It has been stated that while selecting the candidates, petitioners' sons were ignored by the official respond( ants, despite the fact that priority was to be given to the children of retired serving employees of Board of. Revenue. It was stated that the aforementioned appointments were made in violation of the notifies ion dated 21st March, 1998, issued by the Services and General Administration Department, hence; present petition has been filed and following prayer has been sought: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the selection committee/ appointment of junior clerks and class-IV post s made by the Respondents No, 1 and 2 as unlawful and void and of no legal effect and may be set-aside by giving proper relief to the petitioners to which he may be found entitled any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded in the interest of justice."
2. Notice was given to the respondents. Official Respondents No, 1 and 2 filed their para-wise comments, wherein; it was stated that after completion of all codal formalities, the appointing authority (Respondent No, 1) had issued appointment orders of eleven candidates as JUL Clerk and seven candidates as Naib Qasid, strictly in accordance with rules and regulations. It was admitted that sons of petitioners applied for appointment on the above said posts, but the Departmental Selection Committee had not considered them fit for selection for these posts. It has been stated that notification dated 21st March 1998 is not applicable in the instant case, in this regard appeal filed before the Provincial Ombudsman was also rejected. It was categorically stated the entire appointments were made on merits.
3. Mr. Abdul Rauf Lehri, Advocate appeared on behalf of petitioners, while Mr. Nasrullah Achakzai, Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of Respondents No, 1 and 2, and; Miss Sarwat Hina, Advocate appeared on behalf of private Respondents No, 3 to 20.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners has stated that the petitioners' son are entitled to be selected on one of the posts advertised by the o'ficial respondents, and thus; the order of appointment of private respondents is bad in law.
5. On the other-hand, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for private respondents has contended that the petitioners' sons did not qualify for the said posts, in examination, thus; they were not selected as such.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, it transpires that the Government of Balochistan, Services and General Administration. Department, vide Circular No, 2-25/89-Coord: S&GAD, dated 07th July, 1990, had issued notification, whereby; it was advertised that one son/daughter of deceased, retired and disabled Secretariat Staff Member should be provided a job according to his "qualification". Para 2 of the said notification also stated that he must possess qualification/experience required for the said job. Para 2 of the said notification is reproduced herein-below: "2. It is requested that above decision of the Government may be Implemented by the Appointing Authorities provided a person possesses the qualification/experience prescribed under the rules for that particular post."
7. From the reading of above para, it is quite clear that the first question to be considered by the competent authority is as to whether he/she qualifies for the said post. "Qualified" has been defined by Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition in the following terms: "Qualified. Adapted; fitted; entitled; susceptible; capable; competent; fitting; possessing legal power or capacity; eligible; as a "qualified voter" (q.v.) Applied to one who has taken the steps to prepare himself for an appointment or office, as by taking oath, giving bond, etc. Also limited; restricted; confined; modified; imperfect, or temporary."
8. "Qualification" has further been defined in the Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, and has provided as under: "Qualification; 1. a qualifying or being qualified 2 a modification or restriction; limiting condition 3 any quality, skill, knowledge, experience, etc. That fits a person for a position, office, profession, etc.; requisite 4 a condition that must be met in order to exercise certain rights."
9. The word 'qualification' has further been interpreted in the case of Kh. Noor-ul-Ameen u. Sardar Muhammad Abdul Qayyum Khan & another (1991 M LD 2658 [Azad J&K]), which reads as under: "18.The word "qualification" conveys the fitness or capacity of a person for a particular post."
10. From the perusal of aforementioned definition and the conclusion drawn in the aforementioned manner, we are of the opinion that it is only the qualification and experience to be counted for the purposes of appointment of the sons of the petitioners. It is also requirement that he must be found suitable for knowledge, skill and fit person to be appointed by the competent authority, 'suitability' of a candidate is to be considered by the competent authority and is not function of the Courts to judge the said administrative task. Official respondents, as well as, private respondents have categorically stated that sons of the petitioners appeared in examination, but did not qualify for the said posts. Thus for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.