TARIQ JAVED, J. - The petitioner has assailed the appointment of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as Budget & Accounts Examiner Establishment of District and Sessions Court, Muzaffargarh.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance of advertisement published in daily Nawa-e- Waqat, Multan on 27th September, 2008 he filed application for appointment on the said post. The minimum requisite qualification as required was at least 2nd Division, B.Com. And ability of Computer Processing, Basic Computer Course, for instance, Microsoft Office etc. He had also four years practical experience, as he had worked on the similar post in Saudi Energies (Pvt. Limited) and hence was entitled for the appointment whereas the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who were also contenders for the said post, having M.B.A, but had not obtained degree of B.Com., the basic qualification, from any accredited University.
3. The learned Law Officer has maintained that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 having M.B.A, qualifications were better qualified qualification the petitioner secured 48 marks as against the respondents No. 3 who secured 56 marks and respondent No. 4, who secured 59 marks. Therefore, the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 having secured the maximum marks were appointed and the petitioner was declined the posting.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the procedure adopted by the District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh for selection of the candidates was violative of the criteria of selection for initial recruitment, whereby the candidates were to be awarded ten marks for the experience and another ten marks for interview whereas in the present case although the marks were given out of the twenty marks that is ten marks for the experience and ten marks for the interview, however, no distinction for the experience and interview was made and had the twenty marks not been clubbed and ten marks for experience were separately awarded the petitioner- would have succeeded.
6. The criteria of selection for initial recruitment provides that there are a total of hundred marks out of which 60 are allocated for prescribed qualification, twenty are allowed for higher qualification, ten marks are allocated for experience and ten marks are allocated for interview, It appears that the learned District and Sessions Judge clubbed the ten marks of experience with the ten marks of interview and has granted thirteen out of twenty marks to the present petitioner, sixteen out of the twenty marks to respondent No. 2 and seventeen out of the twenty marks to respondent No. 4. However, it is apparent that marks for higher qualification, which were twenty, have not been awarded to any candidate. Now considering these criteria the petitioner has secured total of 48 marks, as he was holding the minimum required qualification. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 although had not qualified, B. Com., had obtained a degree of M.B.A, wherein he had secured 3.42 CGPA. Therefore, if the marks for higher qualification were given his total would have far exceeded the present petitioner. As far as the objection of the petitioner to the effect that the respondents did not have a degree in B. Com., is concerned, suffice it to say that M.B.A, is a higher qualification in a similar discipline, therefore, it cannot be said that q person, who has qualified M.B.A, is lesser qualified or trained than a candidate having passed B. Com, as both of the degrees are in similar discipline having academic training in accounting, finance, statistics, business mathematics and related areas and M.B.A, being a postgraduate qualification is certainly better qualification than B. Com.' Similarly, respondent No. 4 has already obtained 59 marks and if marks for higher qualification were awarded to him his marks would have also exceeded the petitioner's marks, as the petitioner had no better qualification than simple B.Com., and could secure only 48 marks, In these circumstances, it appears that the impugned postings have been rightly made and this petition is having no merit dismissed in limine.