' TARIQ JAVAID, J.--- The petitioner having qualified for Bachelor degree and course in Population Welfare was appointed as Incharge, Family Welfare Workers at Basti Luther, Qadirpur Ran for the last three years. Vacancies for filling the post of Family Welfare Workers were advertised on 29-5- 2009 and the requisite qualification was Matriculation. Along with other candidates the petitioner applied for the same. Respondents Nos.11 to 15 were selected whereas, the petitioner's application for FWW in BS-8 was turned down. The petitioner assailed the same by filing this petition and maintained that the petitioner was better qualified than respondents Nos.11 to 15; that the petitioner had experience of more than. Three years in working as Incharge Family Welfare Worker Centre and as such she was entitled to the appointment, whereas respondents Nos.11 to 15 did not have any experience. It was also maintained that seats are also available but the respondents Nos.6 and 7 with mala fide intention has refused to issue appointment order in her favour.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents who appeared before this court and produced the record.
3. On the other hand, respondents have admitted that the petitioner had requisite qualification as well as there are still two vacancies available. However, they have denied that the appointments of respondents Nos.11 to 15 were made on political considerations or these were mala fide. They submitted that the respondents Nos.11 to 15 were appointed by the Selection Committee.
4. Record was produced by them. According to record maintained by the respondents the respondent No,11 Asia Riaz had passed his Matriculation examination in B-grade and interview; therefore, she was granted 40 numbers on the basis of her qualification and 35 marks by the Chairman, 33 by first member and 37 by second member; that name of Mah Noor does not appear in the list of interview prepared by the respondents Nos.6 and 7. Sobia Khan was awarded 50 marks for her Matriculation examination in Grade-A+ and 38 marks each by each of the member of the committee, whereas Parveen Akhtar was awarded 35 marks for her Matriculation examination and 10 marks for her Graduation. However, she was awarded 35 marks each by each of the member of the Selection Committee. Respondent No,15 Sana was awarded, 30 marks for her Matriculation Examination and in interview she was awarded 38 marks each by each of the member of Selection Committee whereas the petitioner who was granted 35 marks for her matriculation examination and 7 marks for her B.A degree. She was allowed 12, 10 and 8 marks in interview by the Member of the Selection Committee. It is apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner who was Graduate, was given only 30 marks in interview by all of the members of Selection Committee. In case of the petitioner she had been satisfactorily working as Incharge of Family Welfare Worker for more than three years. She had experience of service; therefore, she deserved better treatment by members of the Selection Committee. It is too apparent from the record that all those candidates who were selected were given 35 to 38 marks by each member of the Committee whereas the remaining candidates were given 7 to 13 marks by each of the member of Selection Committee.
The mala fide is apparent on the face of the record. Respondents Nos.11 to 15 have no special qualification, yet they have been given higher marks during the interview; therefore, it is inconceivable that only these five candidates were entitled to higher marks. It goes without saying that name of Mah Noor respondent No,12 does not appear in the list and yet she has been appointed. List of merit and interview prepared by the respondents Nos.6 and 7 amply shows mala fide on the part of the Selection Committee. There is every likelihood that the candidates having some kind of liaison with the Selection Committee have been given 35 marks by each of the members, whereas remaining candidates have been awarded 8 to 13 marks by each of the members of Selection Committee. The mala fide in law is stemming out of it. In fact the impugned appointments merit to be struck down. However, taking a lenient view the impugned appointments are not being struck down. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner against one of the vacant post. This petition is allowed with no order as to cost. The Selection Committee is warned to be careful in future and grant the marks to the candidates, fairly and equitably.