' Through this Intra Court Appeal the appellant has called in question the vires of order dated 23-7- 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The facts, forming background of the instant appeal, are that appellants filed Writ Petition No,13737 of 2006 before this Court challenging process of recruitment of Patwaris in district Faisalabad which was disposed of vide order dated 5-9-2007 referring the matter to the Recruitment Complaint Redressal Cell, Board of Revenue, Punjab. The said case was still under consideration when the appellants filed another Writ Petition No,99 of 2008 which was referred to the Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide order dated 11-1-2008, with a direction to dispose of the same within six weeks. The Recruitment Complaint Redressal Cell decided the same on 14-6-2008 observing that the District Selection/Recruitment Committee had not violated any provisions of the recruitment policy. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed yet another Writ Petition No,8158 of 2008 which was again remitted to Recruitment Complaint Redressal Cell with a direction to pass a speaking order. The case of the appellants was heard and rejected by the said Cell vide its order dated 4-2-2009 observing that the interview being subjective matter the District Selection/Recruitment Committee was in a better position to judge eligibility of a candidate and also declared that stance of the appellants that they were awarded less marks was unjustified. The said observation was challenged by the appellants by way of filing Writ Petition No,4901 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 21-6-2011 laying down criteria for recruitment of the Patwaris viz. Not less than 70% marks for written examination and remaining 30% marks for interview. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed I.C.A. No,718 of 2011 before this Court which was disposed of on 9-1-2012 with a direction that recruitment process be completed within two months. Since the said direction was not complied with by the respondents, the appellants filed contempt petition (Criminal Original No,1042-W of 2012) in which reply was called from the respondents who submitted the same. This court, vide order dated 26-6-2012 declared the said reply unsatisfactory and issued show cause notice to the respondents as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against them. During the interregnum period, the respondents challenged order dated 21-6-2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,4901 of 2009 before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan which was disposed of on 29-6-2012 on the undertaking of the Additional Advocate-General that the entire process of appointment of Dataries shall be completed in terms of the order passed by this Court. Thereafter, respondent No,3 submitted summary before the Chief Minister seeking relaxation of criteria laid down in Recruitment Policy, 2004 to fill up the vacant posts of Qataris in Tehsil Sadar District Faisalabad. Thereafter, respondent No,1 got published an advertisement in daily "Express" in total violation of the spirit of the orders of this Court. Since, according to the appellants the advertisement was published in contravention of the clear cut direction passed by this Court the appellants filed Writ Petition No,18568 of 2012 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23-7-2012; hence this Intra- Court Appeal.
3. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant can be summed up in the words that the learned Single Judge in Chamber passed the impugned order in oblivion of the earlier orders passed by this court; that while passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge in Chamber has omitted to note that while advertising the post of Patwaris the respondents have adopted a totally different criteria as prevalent in the other Districts; that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not taken into consideration that the appellants are approaching different forums to get their right since the year 2006 and there are number of verdicts in their favour; that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has failed to appreciate that Notification dated 7-1-2010 being contrary to Rule 3.12 of the Land Record Manual is not sustainable; that the appellants who otherwise fulfill the criteria for the post of Patwari are being deprived of just on account of the grudge nourished in the mind of the respondents due to filing of different petitions before this Court; that though the applications were invited from the prospective candidates to fill up the post of Patwaris but the respondents have failed to find any suitable appointee which fact supports the version of the appellants; that the persons who have already passed the Patwar Course are only eligible to be appointed as Patwaris and that the learned Single Judge in Chamber did not paid any heed to the fact that the applications filed by the appellants pursuant to the advertisement were not entertained by the respondents.
4. We have given a patient hearing to the points urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the documents appended with this appeal as well as with the Writ Petition.
5. The prime grievance of the appellants in this appeal as well as in the writ petition wherein the impugned order was passed is that respondents have malafidely changed the requisite qualification for the post of Pataki just to deprive the appellants. To evaluate the said contention of the appellants, we are of the view that a survey of the earlier orders passed by this Court as well as by the august Supreme. Court of Pakistan would be conducive. Firstly taking up order dated 5-9- 2007 passed in Writ Petition No,13737 of 2006 we have noted that the matter was referred to the Recruitment Complaint Redressal Cell, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, whereas by virtue of order dated 11-1-2008 passed in Writ Petition No,99 of, 2008 the matter was sent to the Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab. Insofar as Writ Petition No,$158 of 2008 is concerned, the matter was again remitted to the Recruitment Complaint Redressal Cell, Board of Revenue, Punjab, to pass a speaking order while by virtue of order dated 21-6-2011 passed in Writ. Petition No,4901 of 2009 this Court laid down certain criteria wherein the marks for interview as well as for that of written test were earmarked. In none of, the earlier orders passed, by this Court or by the apex court of the country any observation has been given qua the requisite qualification for the post of Patwari. In this state of affairs, the appellants cannot seek any relaxation qua their qualification that certain orders have been passed in their favour in the earlier round of litigation. Moreover, the orders passed in different background cannot be used for pressing into service the point of discrimination.
Reliance in this regard A is placed on the case of Muhammad 'Anwar Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and 2 others (1999 PLC (C.S.) 197) wherein it has been held that:--- ....Anyhow, the argument is without any substance. The aim of the notification is to ensure a fair degree of selection, minimize the chances of discretion and favoritism which aim is neither arbitrary nor illegal and neither the learned counsel for the petitioner could convince us about the fact that the policy of the government containing in the said notification dated 11-2-1987 is in flagrant disregard of any relevant provisions of the service law.
8. We while sitting in our extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot substitute our opinion for that of the Selection Committee so long as the rules and procedure has been properly followed. We, therefore, see no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly."
6. Another important aspect of this matter is that the recruitment of the Patwaris is being governed by the instructions contained in amended Notification No,SOR-III(S&GAD)1-21/2006 dated 17-1-2010, which being later in time as compared to the Land Manual Record, would have B all persuasive effect. Further, until and unless, the said Notification is not struck down, the petitioner cannot challenge any criteria being adopted under the said Notification. Even otherwise, the Competent Authority has the power to specify qualification of a particular post taking into consideration the nature of duties of the said post. Reliance in IC this regard is placed on the cases reported as Zafar Iqbal and another v. Director Secondary Education, Multan Division and 3 others (2006 SCMR 1427) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid law to the following effect:--- .... The Government is always empowered to change the promotion policy and the domain of the Government to prescribe the qualification for a particular post through amendment in the relevant rules, is not challengeable...."
Further, a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court in the case reported as Ibrahim Shah and 11 others v. Executive District Officer, Schools and Literacy Department, District Mardan and 2 others (2008 PLC (C.S) 1034) has held that--- ".... The Court has also recognized the Government's authority to bring about changes in the rules for recruitment to maintain efficiency in the services and held that rules in force at the time of appointment would apply and that no one had vested right to be regulated by the earlier rules since modified. The open merit competition, instead of batch-wise/year-wise recruitment otherwise appears to be better option for the benefit of the students. It merits mention that the petitioners are not excluded for selection but they have to compete with others, regardless of the year of their qualification. We thus hold that the impugned modification in the rules is applicable to the petitioneRs,"
7.It is important to mention over here that Competent Authorityhas a right of reasonable classification amongst different groups. The stance quoted by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding recruitment in other districts of the province is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch in the said districts the advertisement has been published as per Recruitment Policy, 2004, whereas the advertisement in the instant matter has been published pursuant to order dated 21-6-2011 by seeking special relaxation from the Chief Minister of the province. On the point of reasonable classification the case of N.-W.F.P Public Service Commission and others v. Muhammad Arif and others (2011 SCMR 848) can be referred with convenience wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has inter alia held as follows:--- "In view of what has been discussed hereinabove it can be inferred safely that reasonable classification which is not arbitrary or violative of doctrine of equality cannot be questioned. We are not impressed by the contention made, ::the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of respondents that it is a case of sheer discrimination because discrimination means "making a distinction or difference between things; a distinction; a difference; a distinguishing mark or characteristic; the power of observing differences accurately, or of making exact distinctions; discernment. But discrimination against a group or an individual implies making an adverse distinction with regard to some 'benefit, advantage or facility. Discrimination thus involves an element of unfavourbale bias and it is in that sense ' that the expression has to be understood in, this context (Shirin Munir v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1990 SC 295), (Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44). The learned Advocate Supreme Court has failed to point out any unfavourable bias which is an essential ingredient of discrimination and it is not understandable that how it can be pressed in to service."
Further, in Human Rights Case No,5818 of 2006, reported as 2008 SCMR 531 the august Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- "This is, however,. Prerogative of the Government to grant certain privileges to a particular category of its employees on the basis of reasonable classification and the law is that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere in the matter falling within the exclusive domain of Government or nullify its legal and constitutional authority. The courts may not undo the action taken by the Government in- its discretion, unless there is infringement of a legal, right, rather the Courts-in the, light of aim and object of the action should broadly regard the authority confided in the Government. This is however, well- settled principle of law that discretionary power conferred on the Government should be exercised reasonably and subject to the existence of the essential conditions required for exercise of such powers within the scope of law."
8. Even otherwise, in view of the admission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants did not apply pursuant to the advertisement or. Their applications were not entertained by the respondents; we are of the view that the appellants had no locus stand to file the writ petition challenging the process of recruitment wherein they are not participants.
9. As per their own showing, no suitable candidate has been found by the respondents pursuant to the process undertaken by the respondents in view of the advertisement got published by them no adverse inference Can be drawn against the appellants rather they would be at liberty to apply against the said post whenever the same are published in the national press.
10. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order rather the same is perfectly in line with the law on the subject.
11. For what has been discussed above, we see no force in this IF appeal which is hereby dismissed in limine. in limine.