' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- The brief facts giving rise to this petition are to the effect that respondent No,2 advertised the posts of Educators in District Toba Tek Singh in the daily "Jang" of 20-6-2012 as well as on the Internet. In response to the advertisement the petitioner applied for the post of Senior Elementary. School Educator. (Math) BS-14, [hereinafter referred to as SESE (Math)].
After going through the recruitment process the petitioner, obtained 73.313 marks and stood at serial No,2 in the first merit list. The petitioner was called for interview and was interviewed on 18-7- 2012. The petitioner's name was, however, not included in the final merit list. The petitioner was informed that she had not been selected because she had only appended her provisional certificate of B.Sc. and B.Ed. issued by the University of Education, Lahore, Faisalabad Campus, along with her application form. The petitioner had appended the provisional certificates which were issued by the University of Education as the said University had not issued the academic transcripts and/or degrees to the petitioner. In the meantime, the name of one Muhammad Waqas Azam a similarly placed applicant who had applied for the post of SESE (Math) in Faisalabad District was also not included in the final merit list of selected Candidates for District Faisalabad.
Feeling aggrieved the .petitioner as well as the said Muhammad Waqas Azam filed Writ Petition No,2258 of 2013 and Writ Petition No,1259 of 2013. These petitions were disposed of through orders dated 31-1-2013 and the District Coordination Officers of Toba Tek Singh as well as Faisalabad were directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner as well Muhammad Waqas Azam and to pass appropriate orders after affording them an opportunity of hearing. The District Coordination Officer, Toba Tek Singh (respondent.No,2) after considering the petitioner's case turned down .her application on the grounds that the petitioner's application was incomplete as she had not appended the original transcripts/degrees with her application. On the other hand Muhammad Waqas Azam's application was accepted by the ' District Coordination Officer, Faisalabad, inter alia, on the grounds that no variation had been found in the provisional certificates of Muhammad Waqas Azam and his original result card, moreover, other candidates had also been accommodated on the basis of provisional certificates.
The competent authority was, therefore, directed to issue an appointment letter to Muhammad Waqas Azam. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being penalized by the respondents for no fault of hers. She had taken her examinations on time but the University of Education authorities had not issued the original academic transcripts/degrees in time. The petitioner had consequently filed the provisional certificate along with her application. There is no variation in the provisional certificate and her original academic transcript. On the same set of facts the DCO Faisalabad accepted the application of Muhammad Waqas Azam whereas respondent No,2 (DCO Toba Tek Singh/Chairman Recruitment Committee) took the opposing view and turned the petitioner's application down, inter alia, for the reasons that the last date for making the applications for the post in question was 4-7-2012, the petitioner was declared pass in B.Sc. and B.Ed. Examination through Notification No,809 dated 2-8-2012 issued by the University of Education, Lahore, Faisalabad Campus, the petitioner filed her application on 4-7-2012, therefore, at that time the petitioner was only an F.Sc. and thus not eligible, moreover no applicant was selected on the basis of provisional academic certificates; the petitioner, therefore cannot be accomodated.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have adopted a pick and chose policy. The petitioner has been discriminated against. Submits that: respondent No,2 failed to appreciate that there is, no discrepancy between the provisional certificate and academic transcript of the petitioner, both of which documents have been issued by the University of Education. The fault, if any, lies with the University of Education and not with the petitioner as the University of Education belatedly issued the petitioner's academic transcript. Further submits that although the recruitment process has been completed yet a seat of SESE (Math) is still lying- vacant in the Government Girls Elementary School, 403-J.B., Toba Tek Singh. Further submits that if the petitioner were to be appointed to that post no prejudice would be caused to any person. The learned counsel has presented photocopy of a certificate issued by the Head Mistress of the said school stating that the said vacancy exists. Be placed on the record.
4. The departmental representative submits that the petitioner's application was incomplete as she had not filed the requisite transcript along with her application, therefore, she was ineligible to apply for the post in question. Supports the decision of respondent No,2.
5. When confronted with the fact that in the adjoining, District of Faisalabad similarly placed candidates have been accommodated by the Department submits that the recruitment process in question was conducted in District Toba Tek Singh and the petitioner is bound by the decision of the Toba Tek Singh Recruitment Committee. Further submits that no discrimination has taken place against the petitioner vis-a-vis any candidate in District Toba Tek Singh.
6. As to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a post of SESE (Math) is lying vacant in the Government Girls Elementary School, 403-J.B., Toba Tek Singh, submits that several posts are lying vacant in District Toba Tek Singh, however, unless those posts are advertised no candidate including the petitioner can be accommodated against those posts.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner controverts the stance of the departmental representative and submits that in a similar matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the petitioner before it may be considered against vacant posts available with the Department. The learned counsel has submitted photocopies of orders dated 6-12-2010 and 9-12-2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P. No,1971 of 2010 in support of his contention.
8. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to case which does not have any nexus with the instant petition. Further submits that as the petitioner, was not eligible at the time of applying for the post' in question her application was rejected in accordance with the law.
9. I have considered the arguments addressed at the bar and also gone through the record.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner applied in time i.e, on 4-7-2012 for the post in question. The petitioner had taken her examination for the award of the B.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees. The petitioner had been declared successful by the University of Education, Lahore (Faisalabad Campus) and in this respect a provisional certificate had been issued and was appended to the petitioner's application.
The academic transcript of the petitioner was not appended to her application as it was issued on 2-8-2012 i.e, after the cut off for filing of applications. The respondents, therefore, took the view that, since the petitioner's application was incomplete she was not eligible for the post in question. She was, therefore, not appointed.
11. It is further borne out from the record that the petitioner and one Muhammad Waqas Azam (a similarly placed candidate in District Faisalabad) upon not being selected for the post in question in their respective Districts filed Writ Petition No,1258 of 2013 and Writ Petition No,1259 of 2013 for redress of their respective grievance. These petitions were disposed of through orders dated 31-1- 200 and the DCOs. B of both Districts were directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and the said Muhammad Waqas Azam. Upon consideration of their cases whilst the petitioner was declined appointment, the said Muhammad Waqas Azam was appointed by the DCO Faisalabad.
A case of discrimination has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The departmental representative has tried to cover up the apparent, discrimination by submitting, that the recruitment process in both Districts was independent of each other. The petitioner has not been discriminated against vis-a-vis, any candidate in the District Toba Tek Singh.
12. I am afraid I am not convinced by the argument of the departmental representative. The post in question essentially comes under the purview of the Department of Education (Schools), Government of the Punjab. If in one District the candidates can be C accommodated on the basis of provisional certificates then why cannot candidates in. other Districts be accommodated on the same basis. This is more so when seats/posts are admittedly lying vacant. The matter is, therefore, referred to the Secretary Education (Schools) Government of the Punjab, for consideration and decision in accordance with the law.
13. The office is directed to transmit a copy of the petition along with its annexures to the Secretary Education (Schools), Government of the Punjab, who upon receipt of the documents shall consider them as the petitioner's representation and decide it expeditiously, preferably within a month from the receipt of the documents and/or a certified copy of this order.
14. The Secretary whilst considering the petitioner's case shall afford her an opportunity of fair hearing and bear in mind that in the adjoining Faisalabad District similarly placed candidates have been accommodated and that seats are lying vacant in the District Toba Tek Singh.
15. The compliance report be filed through the Deputy Registrar (Jndl.) of this Court.