' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Jamshed has challenged the decision of Syndicate dated 4- 12-2008 taken in the 77th meeting of the Syndicate and the office order, dated 5-12-2008 vide which respondents Nos.6 and 7 were appointed as Lecturers (BPS-18) in the Department concerned, as illegal, without jurisdiction and constitutional and prayed for its cancellation.
2. The facts are that in pursuance to advertisement regarding the vacancies of Lecturers in BPS-18 in the Department of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, Gomal University, D.I. Khan, application was submitted by the petitioner. It is alleged in the petition that in advertisement, no screening test was mentioned in which petitioner participated and he qualified in the said test. He also attended the interview before Selection Board. Thereafter in its 77th meeting the Syndicate took up the matter of appointment of Lecturers and decided to appoint respondents Nos.6 and 7 as Lecturers by approving the recommendations of Selection Board and accordingly they were appointed through an office order dated 5-12-2008, which, according to the petitioner is unconstitutionaband illegal.
3. Learned counsel for both the parties heard and record on file perused, in the light of which our discussion is as under:---
4. The following arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
(a) The screening test is illegal because no provision is existed and similarly the counting of marks in respect of screening test is unlawful.
(b) The composition of Selection Committee is also not in accordance with law because the two members co-opted, are not on the approved list and therefore, their consultation is not meaningful.
(c) That the vacancies advertised in the newspaper were not approved by Finance and Planning Committee and its approval was subsequently made after screening test which was unwarranted.
(d) The petitioner is gold medallist and first division holder throughout.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that the screening test is duly approved by "Syndicate" and therefore, it is fully provided in the Rules. Regarding composition, the plea of learned counsel for the respondents is that co-opted Members, namely, Dr. Salahuddin Khan and Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shah are fully qualified to participate in the proceedings of Selection Committee as Subject Specialist. He pointed out that their names are available in the list attached with the comments. Regarding non-approval of vacancies by Finance and Planning Committee, it is submitted that it is administrative matter and the petitioner has got no cause of action to raise objection in this regard.
6. We have gone through the available record and also considered the arguments of learned counsel of both parties.
7. We would first discuss the objection regarding screening test. It is true that provision of screening test is not mentioned in the advertisement appeared in the newspaper for the vacancies. In our opinion non-mentioning of screening test in advertisement is not fatal because all details are not required to be given in the advertisement. Only basic requirements are mentioned which include qualification etc. For the candidates. The screening test is not noval. Almost all the Public Service Commissions in the Pakistan including F.P.S.C. Conduct screening test for the purpose of short listing the candidates. These tests are not mentioned by Public Service Commission or other bodies in advertisements. There mentioning is not necessary. Moreover the provision of screening test has been approved by Syndicate in its 73rd meeting held on 28-7-2007. The relevant findings of the meeting is reproduced below:--- "Item No,5 procedure of screening test of teaching as well as administrative staff in BPS-17 and weightage of marks awarded by Subject Experts for appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professor.
(a) In connection to this item, the House decided that the marks of the screening test will be included and summed up with the remaining marks specified in the evaluation pro forma sans the marks for interview. However, the top five scorers will be called for interview/appearance in the Selection Board for each post. The members of the Syndicate hoped that the Vice-Chancellor shall ensure a visible transparency in the process of selection."
' From the above it is crystal clear that screening test is provided by the University Authorities.
8. Now the crucial point is as to whether the marks obtained in the screening test by candidates can be counted. The pro forma attached with the comments show that the respondents, have given the marks obtained in the screening test by the candidates in Column No,4. The marks obtained by candidates are given against their names. This pro forma also provides for marks for academic record, distinction, additional higher qualification, experience, negative marks and interview. The decision of the Syndicate dated 28-7-2007 referred to above also provides that the marks obtained by a candidate will be included in the proforma. Therefore, no objection can be raised with regards to the marks obtained by candidate in screening test. The petitioner has failed to prove discrimination in this regard. So the objection is of no avail.
9. As far as the academic qualification is concerned it is nowhere denied by respondents.v The petitioner is gold medallist as per record of this petition. But holding a gold medalist position or a first division is not a sole guarantee for appointment because had it been so there would have been no test and such person would have been taken in employment without any formalities. A gold medallist or a higher qualified person cannot claim title for appointment alone on this basis.
He has to face certain formalities like test and interview. If we look into this aspect of the case i.e, higher qualification again we would refer to proforma (Annexure "R") wherein marking system for selection of University Teacher BPS-18 is mentioned. This proforma is attached with the comments.
This shows that the petitioner Muhammad Jamshed at S.No,1 has been given 29 marks for academic record which is highest amongst other candidates meaning thereby that he has not been discriminated in this regard. His higher qualification has been taken into consideration by giving him maximum marks. He has been given 5 marks in distinction column and 10.8 marks in interview. So there seems no mala fide on the part of University Authorities to deprive the petitioner from his legal rights. So in the case of the petitioner his higher qualification has duly been considered and appreciated.
10. Coming to the arguments regarding illegality of the composition of Selection Board it is to be mentioned that the two persons namely Dr. Salahuddin Khan and Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shah were associated with the selection initially some other persons were nominated and after their inability to attend the meeting they were substituted by the above-mentioned Experts. In this regard section 13(3) empowers the Vice-Chancellor to take such action which may be necessary in emergency which requires immediate action. The refusal of Expert summoned for the purpose forced University Authorities to exercise their power under section 13(3) of the Gomal University Act, so the inclusion of the Subject Experts are fully covered by the law and exception can be taken.
11. In writ jurisdiction a petitioner is required to prove illegality, violation of fundamental rights or defect in jurisdiction. In our opinion as stated above a duly constituted Committee conducted the proceedings of selection and after due consideration a merit list was made and formed their recommendation which were approved by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 4-12-2008. In pursuance of approval of the Syndicate on 5-12-2008, respondents Nos.6 and 7 were appointed as Lecturers. No illegality has been committed by respondents concerned, therefore the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.