' MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.--- Abdul Wahab, petitioner, being a candidate for the post of Lecturer in English in response to the advertisement dated 21-5-2010 made by Public Service Commission Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is aggrieved of the appointment orders of respondents Nos.4 to 52 on such posts, and he, through instant writ petition, has prayed for declaring the same as illegal and in violation of merits.
2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner along with others had appeared in the written test for the post of English Lecturers held under the supervision of Public Service Commission and topped the same by securing 84 out of 100 marks. However, after conducting interviews, he was not recommended whereas respondents Nos.4 to 52 were recommended by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission.
3. Respondents in their comments have stated that the process of recruitment of Lecturers in English (BPS-17) has been carried out in a transparent manner in accordance with zonal allocation formula, wherein the petitioner stood at S.No,232 and due to vacancies limitation, he could not be recommended. According to them, the written test is in the nature of a screening test and only for short listing purpose, which does not provide any right to a candidate to' be recommended /appointed unless he remains successful in the interview because the marks obtained in the screening test are not counted towards the total marks obtained.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring Rule 24 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003 argued that petitioner having secured first position amongst the candidates for the posts in question was required to have been given marks besides the marks of interview and by not doing so; the very purpose of the written test has been nullified.
5. On the other hand, counsel for respondents argued that under Rule 29 a set procedure of marking system has been prescribed for posts to be filled other than syllabus based competitive examinations, wherein no marks have been allocated to the written test and, therefore, no injustice has been done to the petitioner on this count.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. Rules-23, 24 and 29 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003 relate to the cases of direct recruitment. According to Rule 23, if disproportionate numbers of applications are received as against the number of available vacancies, the Commission may hold a screening test so as to bring the candidates to a manageable level of interview. Where no such test is held, short listing can also be made on the basis of such academic and/or professional record of the candidates as the Commission may decide to take into consideration. According to Rule 24, the Commission will decide the nature of the screening test keeping in view the qualification and experience prescribed for the post. It further provides that on receipt of result a merit list of all the candidates shall be drawn. The top ten candidates on the merit list shall be called for interview against a post reserved for merit while five candidates per post shall be called against zonal post. From the above provisions, it is clear that the Rules of procedure enable the Public Service Commission to adopt various methods by which they could screen out candidates for the purpose of interview. Any number of given candidates could be taken out from the top of the list up to the number of the candidates required in order of merit for the purpose of short listing. The rationale behind Rule 24 is that for one vacancy reserved for merit, top ten candidates on the merit list would be called for interview and the eleventh one on the merit list would not be entitled to be called for interview.
Similar would be the case of zonal posts as per criteria provided in Rule-24. The above Rule no where indicates that a candidate having secured higher marks shall be given any distinct treatment against those candidates, who are borne on the merit list with less marks.
8. According to Rule 29 of the Regulations, the 100 marks have been distributed as under:---
(i) Academic Record: 30 marks
(ii) Distinction for standing first in Board/ 5 marks University/ Hafiz-ul-Quran.
(iii) Additional relevant/higher qualifications 5 marks
(iv) Experience 50 marks
(v) Interview 50 marks ' No marks have thus been allocated to the written test, which is only for short listing of candidates.
9. Petitioner has failed to substantiate his grievances by showing any violation of the law/rules on part of respondents while completing the process of selection for the posts in question. It is evident from the file about 1184 candidates had applied for the post, out of which 890 candidates were called for screening test for 49 seats of English Lecturers. Although petitioner was on top of the merit list of successful candidates in the written test but he could not obtain sufficient marks in the interview. Petitioner belongs to Zone-3 and as per merit list attached by petitioner with the writ petition the second and third positions were also fetched by the candidates from Zone-3 with 83 and 82 marks respectively, however, they too were not recommended and instead the candidate at S.No,128 of the merit list was recommended from Zone-3. Likewise, the first merit vacancy was given to the candidate from Zone-4 (Bannu), whose merit position was at S.No,57. Thus, there remains no force in the contention of petitioner, that he being at S.No,1 of the merit list cannot be assumed a position at S.No,232 in the order of merit after interview because mere securing high marks in the written test would not create a vested right in favour of a candidate unless he secures required marks in the interview.
10. For the reasons stated above, no good ground exists for interference in the matter in hand and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed as such with no order as to costs.