' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner on the basis of an advertisement dated 29th of April, 2009 issued by the District Education Officer (respondent No,2)/ Chairman Selection Committee, District Faisalabad, for various posts including the post of Secondary School Educator SSE (Computer Science) in the column relating to precise basic qualification it was stated that anybody holding M.Sc. (Computer Science) will be preferred.
According to the advertisement, the last date for submission of applications for the said post was 14-5-2009. It was also stated in the advertisement that along with the application certified copies of the testimonial including educational qualification will be submitted. The petitioner submitted her application for the said position on 14-5-2009 and a receipt bearing diary No,8082 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner also appended certificate of domicile, result card of Intermediate Annual Examination 2004, result card of Secondary School Certificate Annual Examination 2002, result intimation card of the Bachelor of Art Annual Examination 2006 and provisional result intimation of the Intermediate Part-I and II Annual Examination 2004. This was supported by a certificate dated 9-5-2009 issued by the Chairman Department of Computer Science, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, which certified that the petitioner completed her M.Sc. (Computer Science) and had obtained 3.43/4.00 CGP and, as per University Regulations, result will be notified fottnightly.
2. Thereafter before interview of the petitioner on 28-6-2009 the M.Sc. Result/official transcript was issued on 27-6-2009 to the petitioner which states that the result was notified on 15-5-2009.
Thereafter a merit list was prepared for Samundri Town and the petitioner was placed at No,2 on the Merit List with a grand total of 62.56 points. The petitioner contends that the person appearing at serial No,1 of the Merit List declined to join the said service and, therefore, for practical purposes the petitioner stood at No,1 on the merit list. However, vide order dated 5-9-2009 issued by respondent No,1 the application of the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner did not possess a Master's degree on the last date of filing application.
3. First submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no one can be scarified on the altar of technicalities. Further submits that petitioner's application cannot be rejected subsequently when the same was initially entertained after having taken all the steps 'required for evaluating it.
He has also placed reliance on the principle of locus poenitentiae and relied on re. Miss Breshna Haq Tareen v. Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and others 2005 SCMR 351.
Further submits that petitioner was placed at No,2 of the Merit List while person at No,1 declined to join the service, the petitioner's position on the Merit List does not affect any other candidate for the said post. It is also submitted that petitioner is the only candidate who possesses degree of M.Sc.
(Computer Science) in the entire Merit List prepared for the Samundri Town. Further contends that there are 34 posts for Samundri Town to which only 18 candidates qualified. He also referred to the policy dated 23rd August, 2008 issued by the Government of the Punjab, School Education Department and referred to Clause 7-A of the Policy. Learned counsel contends that it has been clearly provided in Annexure "B" to the said policy that preference should be given to the candidates of M.Sc. With Computer Science. Further contends that the petitioner has to earn livelihood and the same is being denied to her by rejecting her application. To support his contention learned counsel has relied upon re. Zahra Zando v. King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others 2005 YLR 1703. Lastly. Argued that the case of the petitioner should be dealt with as a special case being one of extreme hardship.
4. Learned law officer supported the impugned order.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Perusal of the advertisement shows that the petitioner had to submit her application latest by 14-5-2009 along with her educational testimonials and other necessary particulars like the experience certificate, Nikahnama, identity card, domicile certificate, etc. The A petitioner filed her application on the said date along with her testimonials and including a certificate issued by the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad certifying that the petitioner had completed her M.Sc.
Computer Science on 5-5-2009 and had obtained 3.43 Cumulative Grade Point (CGP). Therefore, the petitioner had fully complied with all the requirements of the advertisement.
7. It is important to note that that the petitioner had qualified her M.Sc. Computer Science on 5-5- 2009 before the date of application and was simply awaiting her detailed result card/transcript which was to be issued by the University and was not within her control to procure the same, therefore, the impugned order dated 5-9-2009 stating that the result of M.Sc. (C.S) Degree of the petitioner was notified on 15-5-2009 and the result issued on 10-6-2009 are irrelevant considerations.
8. Even otherwise, the date for filing the application in the advertisement appears to be an administrative/secretarial act, whereby the relevant testimonials/documents of the candidates are being collected for the purposes of evaluation to be done by the concerned Selection Committee later on, therefore, the date of application cannot be considered to be substantive cut off date or a date after which the case of the petitioner cannot be processed. At least, in the instant case, the advertisement does not specify or underline the importance of the said date and, therefore, the said date has no more importance than that of administrative convenience. A perusal of the Policy for Recruitment for Educators in Government School (2008-2009) dated 23-8- 2008 attached with the comments of the respondents actually lays down the substantive purpose and procedure of evaluation of the candidates for the post of SSE. The said Policy provides in clause 8 that there shall be a Selection/Recruitment Committee. Further, in clause 10(xiv) it states that the Members of the Recruitment Committee shall assess the eligible candidates and evaluate their abilities as per Evaluation Form. Sub-clause (xvii) states that verification of certificates/degrees shall be done by the DDO concerned within three months after joining of the selected candidates and finally clause 2 of the Policy sets out that the policy aims for provision of better qualified Educators in public schools. Therefore, the real cut off date is the date when the evaluation process is set in motion. The case of the petitioner is that much before the interview even the result card was supplied to the respondents and it is clear from the merit list, in which the name of the petitioner appears, that during the evaluation process all the documents of the petitioner were in place and, therefore, she secured 62.6 points as her grand total as opposed to one Saima Latif, who stood at serial No,1 with 66.35 points. The impugned order is in violation of the policy mentioned above as well as the substantive process of evaluation and has unlawfully attached undue importance to the date of the application i.e, 14-5-2009. Respondent EDO (Education) in the impugned letter has given effect to form and not to the substance. It has been noted in PLD 1975 SC 678 that "mere technicalities unless offered an insurmountable hurdle should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice" and then in PLD 1963 SC 382 "any system which by giving effect to the form and not to the substance, defeats substantive rights is defective to that extent. The ideal must always by a system that gives to every person what is his." Reliance is also placed on PLD 1994 Lah.55.
9. The petitioner after having submitted her documents had acquired the vested right as well as legitimate expectations that her case be considered for evaluation. As the documents were supplied before the evaluation process was set in motion, her vested right and legitimate expectations could not be taken away by the impugned order.
10. For the above reasons, the impugned order is unlawful, based on irrelevant consideration, unnecessarily technical and in violation of the Recruitment Policy and is, therefore, set aside. The position of the petitioner at serial No,2 of the merit list is restored and the respondents are directed to consider her case for appropriate appointment in accordance with law so that the _real purpose of selecting the best teachers and the imparting of education to the students is not hampered any further.