Syed Yahya Zahid Gillani, J.--The Petitionei Noor-ul-Haq is a teacher in Ranolia, District Kohistan in the year 1996. He applied for appointment on the post of Head Master, which was advertised by NWFP Public Service Commission. He failed to get appointment inspite of litigation up to apex Court because there was a screening test and under the prevailing Formula the aggregate of his marks in the interview coupled with percentage mark obtained in the screening test, were not sufficient to qualify.
2. With this history, he again applied for the post of Head Master advertised by Public Service Commission in daily `Mashriq' on 1.2.2004, qualified the written screening test, appeared in interview, but failed to qualify the interview. Therefore, he was not recommended for appointment and hence this petition under Article-199 of the Constitution.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Tariq Khan Tanoli, advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Qaiser Rashid, AAG for respondents. Record has also been gone through with their assistance in the light of prevailing rules and regulations.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have deviated from their established policy, made under the Rules, and did not count percentage of numbers of screening test alongwith numbers of interview which resulted in his failure. In this context he referred the judgments pertaining to his appearance in the competition in 1996 and argued that this deviation from policy is not a fair play. Rather it is violation of law and misuse of lawful authority.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General, while assisting the Court, argued that the petitioner is'agitating to get shelter under a policy which is a past and closed chapter. He added that presently the fresh policy is prevailing on the strength of Rules and Regulation under which the petitioner after qualifying screening test was summoned for interview which he could not qualify.
Numbers obtained with screening test cannot be counted with numbers of interview for his success as it is not permissible. He referred the Rules and Regulation which are discussed below.
6. Section-10 and Section-10-A of the NWFP Public Service Commission Ordinance 1978, Provides that Government may by notification in official gazette make Rules for carrying out the purpose of this ordinance and subject to the provisions of Ordinance and the rules, the Commission may make Regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance. Consequently the NWFP Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules were framed in 1983 and thereafter NWFP Public Service Commission Regulations were promulgated in the year 2003.
7. Regulation No, 23 provides for holding screening test to bring the candidate to a manageable level of interview if the applications are disproportionate in number, in a direct recruitment cases.
8. Regulation No, 24, empowers the Commission to decide the nature of the screening test and Regulation No, 29 provides the marking system.
9. Clause (o) of Regulation No, 29 is most relevant to the case of the petitioner which lays down that marks obtained in screening test/ability test shall be counted only for short listing purpose.
10. In case there was a policy in the past that the percentage of the marks obtained in the screening test was added in the interview marks, that policy has now been abandoned and superceded by Regulation No, 29(o) which clearly indicates that the numbers obtained in the screening test shall be only for the purpose of short listing. Meaning thereby that they shall not be added under any formula, to the numbers obtained in interview, for final decision relating to recommendation for appointment against the post.
11. This being the legal position, the failure of petitioner in interview has deprived him from recommendation of appointment and there appears to be no violation of prevailing law, rules and regulation in his case. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.