The grievance of the petitioners is that in response to an advertisement published by the respondents for recruitment of Subject Specialists in BS-17 on 30.8.2009 through press, the petitioners filed their applications for their posting on the above said posts.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have illegally been ignored while lesser qualified candidates have been selected. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, all the three petitioners possessed required qualifications. They were all position holders throughout their academic career and also secured first three positions amongst 689 candidates short listed for written test. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners apart from the academic qualifications the petitioners were position holders in extra curriculum activities including debates and essay writing and had excellent academic record. Therefore, they were better candidates than the others and their rejection is based on mala fide and ulterior motives to accommodate the other candidates, who were lesser qualified.
3. On the other hand; the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the first two petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications at the time of filing of applications whereas the third petitioner had failed in interview. Therefore, they were rightly rejected by the respondents.
4. According to the advertisement published in "daily Bang" dated 30.8.2009 Respondent No. 1 invited applications for 16 posts of Subject Specialist Arabic BS-1,7 (male). The requisite qualifications were at least M.A. Second division with B.Ed. Second Division and the criteria for selection of candidates was laid down as under:-- "2. In case large number of applications are received for post (s), short-listing of the eligible candidates will be done in any of the following methods:
(a) Evaluation of the academic record.
(b)Written test related to the job/qualification or general ability.
(c)Combination of the above two methods.
5. Allegedly, large number of applicants filed applications. On the basis of above criteria 689 candidates were short listed for written test. Admittedly, the petitioners took part in the written test and they were placed at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, according to the merit list prepared as a result of written test. The petitioners amongst others were invited for interview. The Petitioner No. 1, who stood first in the written test was granted 72 marks out of 100. The Petitioner No. 2, who stood second in the written test was granted 62 marks out of 100. The Petitioner No. 3, who stood third in the written test was granted only 36 marks out of 100 and as such he is said to have failed the interview. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained that the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 although had taken the examination of B.Ed., at the time of filing of their applications, their results had not been declared, therefore, allegedly they were not qualified for the position at the time of filing of applications as such they were not taken into service while the Petitioner No. 3 had failed the interview. Therefore, he was also rejected. With regard to Petitioners No. 1 and 2 regulation 22 of the Punjab Public Service Commission was heavily pressed into service, which is reproduced as under: "22. Eligibility of a candidate shall be determined in accordance with the advertisement for the post, service rules governing appointments to the relevant post and such other ancillary instructions issued by the Government and/or the Commission from time to time. For this purpose, the age, qualifications, experience and other credentials etc. of the candidates existing on or up to the closing date fixed for such posts as advertised, shall be taken into account. No relaxation in this regard shall be allowed."
6. It was argued that according to the above said regulation the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 ought to have qualified their B.Ed, examination before filing of the applications. According to the learned counsel for the respondents under the above rule at the time of filing applications the Respondents No. 1 and 2 were required to have passes their B.Ed. examination and the fact that they had taken the B.Ed. examination without declaration of result did not qualify them for the post and since the Respondent No. 3 did not qualify in the interview the petition merits to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is an admitted position that at the time of filing of the applications the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had taken the examination of B.Ed., however their result was awaited. They filed their applications wherein it was disclosed and the respondents entertained their applications. The respondents invited them for written test wherein Petitioners No. 1 and 2 stood first and second, thereafter they were invited for interview on 22.4.2010. By then the petitioners had passed their B.Ed. examination, the result whereof had been declared on 20.2.2010 and this fact was statedly brought to the notice of the persons interviewing the candidates. If the petitioners were not qualified according to the regulation 22 as enumerated above then their applications should have not been entertained by the respondents. Once their applications were entertained and they were invited to sit in the written examination, which both of the petitioners passed with distinction and secured first and second positions out of 689 andidates and thereafter they were invited to interview. This whole exercise would amount to waiver of the condition prescribed under regulation 22. By that time the petitioners were invited for interview they had already passed B.Ed, examination once again with distinction. Therefore, it was not open for the respondents to raise the plea at the last stage that the petitioners were not qualified for the post. The functionaries are under a legal obligation to raise objections on the applications if any, at the first instance. If the applications are entertained and for all practical purposes the candidates are short listed and then invited to take the written test and after having passed the test they are invited to interview wherein they are declared successful then it is not open for the respondents to turn round and take the plea that the applicants were not qualified and their applications should have not been entertained.
9. Regarding the Respondent No. 3, who had all the requisite qualifications, had passed all hts academic qualifications with distinction, had participated in extra curriculum activities and always came out with distinction has more qualifications than required for the post and yet awarding him only 36 marks in the interview does not appear to be justified on the face of it. The respondents have not shown the break-up of 36 marks. By now it is a settled principle of law that the marks granted to the candidates in interview must be commensurate with the marks obtained by them in their academic qualifications. It is hard to believe that a candidate, who has got all the qualifications with distinctions, has participated in speech contests, had been awarded gold medal in M.A. Arabic, had been placed at number one position in Urdu essay writing competition, had first position in Shahadat-ul-Aliya Tanzim-ul-Madaris Pakistan could secure only 36 marks in an interview. This speaks of volumes of mala fide in law on the part of the respondents. The respondents have not shown that the candidates, who passed the interview and were selected had any better academic qualifications and that those were placed higher than the Petitioner No. 3 in their extra curriculum activities. An over-all view of all of the credentials of each candidate must be taken into consideration while awarding marks in the interview. Therefore, the impugned result is set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioners, who appear to be very well qualified for the post. The petition is allowed with cost.