Rooh-ul-Amin Khan, J.--On 28.5.2013, the Respondent No, 2 invited applications on printed Forms, through advertisement published in daily "Aar for appointment against the post of Associate Professor BPS-20 (Weed Science), from the eligible candidates having the following qualification: "Ph.D in the relevant field from an HEC recognized University/Institution plus, 10 (ten) years Teaching/research experience in HEC recognized University or a Post Graduate Institution or professional experience in, the relevant field in a National or International Organization, plus 10
(ten) research publications (with at least 4 (Four) Publications in the last 5 years) in HEC recognized journals. OR 5 (Five) years post Ph.D teaching/research experience in HEC recognized University or a Post Graduate Institution or professional experience in the relevant field in a National or International Organization, plus 10 research publications (with) of least 4 (Four) publications in the last 5 years) in HEC recognized journals."
' The petitioner being equipped with the required qualification i,e, Ph.D. Degree in Weed Science applied for the post of Associate Professor lying vacant in the relevant category of Weed Science.
The Respondents No, 6 to 8 were also in the run for the same position in the same discipline, therefore, their credentials were placed before the Scrutiny Committee for determination of their eligibility and quantification wherein all the candidates competing for the post in question were declared eligible and their names were referred to the Selection Board for further proceedings at that end. In pursuance of the recommendation of Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner alongwith Respondents No, 6 and 8 were called for interview by the Selection Board and ultimately, the Respondents No, 6 to 8 were recommended to the Syndicate for appointment against the vacant posts of Associate Professor in Weed Science, which aggravated the grievance of petitioners, who rushed to knock the door of this Court with the following prayer:--
(i) Declare the declaration of eligibility of Respondents No, 6 & 7 as unlawful, mala fide, contrary to the terms of advertisement and statutes, tainted with favouritism and nepotism liable to be set aside. Further declare the recommendation of Respondent No, 5 (Selection Board) in favour of Respondents No, 6 & 7 as illegal, unlawful, unjustified, unfair, discriminatory and of no legal effect.
(ii) Direct the. Respondents No, 1 to 5 to act in accordance with law and to consider the Research Project Report, make correct evaluation as teacher and award the requisite marks for the recognized Awards received by petitioner from time to time.
(iii) Restrain the Respondents No, 1 & 4 from granting approval to recommendation of Respondent No, 5 (Selection Board) regarding the selection of Respondents No, 6 & 7 to the post of Associate Professor and from issuing any notification in this regard.
(iv) Any other relief as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of case not specifically asked for, may also be granted to petitioner.
2. Initially, comments of the respondents were called for and in the meanwhile the status quo was ordered to be maintained, however, on 12.5.2014 on request of the counsel for Respondent No, 6 & 7, the syndicate was allowed to proceed with the appointment process of the parties to Lis, however, the final authority was restrained to pass the final order regarding appointments, till decision of the instant writ petition.
3. ' The learned counsel for petitioner vividly argued that the petitioner is highly qualified having Ph.D degree in the Weed Science from the university of Queensland, Australia and now a days pursuing the Post-Doctorate in Weed Science in U.A.E University, Al-Ain. He is also performing his duties as lecturer in the Weed Science Department since 3.2.2005 while the Respondents No, 6 & 7 have qualified their Ph.D degree in Agricultural Bio-Tech and Agricultural Science from Tsukuba University, Japan and University of Queensland, Australia respectively. Thus the respondents are lacking qualification in the relevant discipline being not equipped with degree in Weed Science, hence not qualified in terms of advertisement for the post of Associate Professor, BPS-20 in Weed Science Department. The learned counsel for petitioner also disputed the length of experience of respondents and argued that the petitioner has been appointed as lecturer in the Department of Weed Science on regular basis w.e.f 17.2.2003, vide order dated 6.3.2003, thus, he has more experience than the requisite i,e, 10 years, while the Respondents No, 6 and 7 have been appointed as lecturer on regular basis on 3.2.2005 w.e.f 18.1.2005, therefore, they have a maximum experience of teaching in the Weed Science as 8 years 4 months and 27 days which is less than the required experience of 10 years. He further argued that the Chairman of the Weed Science Department was also one of the members of the Selection Board against whom the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint regarding his corruption and maltreatment with the petitioner. The petitioner, in this regard, has also submitted application to the Vice-Chancellor, Agricultural University, Peshawar, showing his reservation against the above mentioned person but with no premium to him. Thus the Selection Board, in presence of a biased person has not acted fairly by not awarding him the requisite marks as commensurate to the knowledge of the petitioner during the interview and in this view of the matter, the petitioner has been discriminated by not recommending his name for selection.
4. The above arguments of learned counsel for petitioner was strongly refuted by the respondent and argued that the Respondents No, 6 and 7 have acquired their Ph.D degrees in Weed Science from the renowned Universities of the world. The Respondent No, 7 is MS.c (Hons) from the University of Peshawar and has obtained his Ph.D degree from the university of Queensland, Australia in agricultural science discipline calling major subject area of Weed Science. No doubt, the text appearing on the title of the degree conveying the word. "Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Agricultural Science" but reading the same in juxtaposition with thesis submitted by the respondents would abundantly make it clear that the subject area of his philosophy was "Weed Science", because the title of the thesis, submitted by the Respondent No, 7, is "Long term sustainable management of parthenium weed (Parthenium Hysterophorus L.) using suppressive pasture plants." Parthenium Hysterophorus is a species of flower plant commonly known as whitetop weed which has been remained area of research of respondent. Likewise, the Respondent No, 6 has joined the service with the university as a lecturer in Weed Science and had acquired her Ph.D degree from the university of Tsukuba, Japan in Weed Science. It is also born out of the record that the Respondents No, 6 and 7 are serving the university since 2002, having overall experience of 11 years in teaching of Weed Science. Learned counsel for Respondents No, 1 and 2 while clarifying biasness of one of the members of Selection Board namely Azeem Khan argued that the Chairman of the concerned Department by virtue of Section 4-1(d) of the University Ordinance, 1981 saved under clause 45(f) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University Act, 2012 is a statutory member, moreso, when Mr. Azeem Khan was not the sole member of the committee nor having any influence on the Vice Chancellor/chairman of the Committee. The petitioner has appeared before the Selection Board, therefore, he is stopped by his own conduct to urge the malafide on the part of an honourable member who is head of the concerned department, learned counsel for the respondents lastly added.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record would reveal that the post of Associate Professor (BPS-20) in Department of Weed Science was advertised by the Respondent No, 2 against which the petitioner as well as Respondents No, 6 to 8 submitted application on printed forms, for appointment. The credentials of the candidates were examined by the Scrutiny Committee and were placed before the Selection Board. The Selection Board in its 79th meeting held on 12.3.2014 recommended the Respondents No, 6 to 8 for appointment as Associate Professor, BPS-20 in the Department of Weed Science in order of merit position i,e, Dr. Ijaz Ahmad Khan with 60.34 Score out of 100, Dr. Saima Hasham - having 56.10 marks out of 100 and Dr. Naeem Khan securing 51.46/100. The recommendation of Selection Board got approbation of the syndicate in its meeting dated 13.5.2014 but the notification is awaited due to restraint order passed by this Court.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Ph.D degree of Respondents No, 6 and 7 is misconceived and unpersuasive. No doubt, the Ph.D degree of Respondents No, 6 and 7 reflect that the same have been conferred by the University in the field of Agricultural Science but the same has been clarified by the concerned universities that the incumbents have completed their thesis in Weed Science. For better understanding and clarification, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the letters of clarification issued by the respective Universities.
' The letter of Tsukuba University dated 15.4.2014 regarding Ph.D degree of Respondent No, 6 is as under: "To whom it may concern.
"It is certified that I was the advisor of Dr. Saima Hashim during her Ph.D.. Her thesis title was "Mechanism of Trifluralin Resistance in Alopecurus aequalis" and her Ph.D research paper was published in Weed Science, the oldest journal of Weed Science. Her research was on Herbicides Resistance, which is the major problem that must be solved in present day Weed Science. There is no doubt that her degree is in weed science.
' Your sincerely ' Hiroshi Matsumoto, Ph.D.
' Professor, Faculty of Life and EnvironmentafSciences ' Director, Center in Research for Isotopes and Environmental Dynamics, University of Tsukuba, ' Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572 Japan: ' Similarly the letter dated April 2014, issued by the principal supervisor of Respondent No, 7 at tropical and sub-tropical weed research unit, the school of Agriculture and food science, ' the University of Queensland, Australia read as under: "Dr. Naeem Khan.
' To whom it may concern, ' Dr. Naeem Khan lived for 4 years in Australia conducting research studies for his. Ph.D. Under my supervision and that of Dr's Doug George and Chris O'Donell at the University of Queensland, Brisbane. He carried out his Ph.D. Studies on the "Long term sustainable management of parthenium weed (Parthenium Hysterophorus L.) using suppressive pasture plants'. This research work involved both glasshouse and field work and looked at how certain pasture plants could suppress the growth of parthenium weed, a significant invasive alien weed of more than 30 countries, in an attempt to find ways of better managing this weed.
' Dr. Khan completed the Ph.D. Program in early 2011 and the evaluation was completed by external weed science experts in September, and as a result of this process was awarded his Ph.D. Degree on 29th September 2011. The subject area of his thesis was "Weed Science".
' During his stay at the university of Queensland, Australia, Dr. Khan obtained research skills in many areas of Weed Sciences, in particularly in the biology and management of one of the world's most important invasive alien weeds, parthenium weed.
' He was an efficient, hard working, enthusiastic young professional researcher with a very friendly and caring manner, Dr. Khan fitted well into the Tropical and Subtropical Weeds Research Unit within the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland. I confirm that the subject area of his Ph.D. Study was "Weed Science". Dr. Khan has also published papers in both national and international high impact factor journals, all within the subject area of "Weed Science".
' Yours sincerely ' Steve Adkins Professor
6. The perusal of the above referred to letters would make it abundantly clear that both the respondents have completed their studies of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Weed Science. The appearance of word "Agricultural Science" does not exclude the research and thesis of the respondents, manifestly done in the Weed Science specialty. Agricultural science is a study of the science and technology underlying the principles practices of agriculture. It aims to develop knowledge, skill and attitude concerning the factors that affect the long term well being of agricultural resources, and places emphasis on the managed uses of these resources. The studies in agricultural science include Agriculture, Agriculture Extension, Agronomy, Crop Production, Entomology, Fiber Technology, Food Science and Technology, Food Technology, Forestry, Horticulture, Nutrition, Plant Breeding and Genetics, Plant Pathology, Plant Protection, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Water Management and Weed Scieance. In our view the word "Agricultural Science" has been used in the broad spectrum because the Weed Science alongwith above mentioned other 17 subject areas are the discipline of Agricultural Science. The agricultural science, in fact, is not a separate independent discipline rather is used as overall consolidative discipline named -for the above mentioned studies and subjects, thus reference to "Agricultural Science" on the title of the degree would not be sufficient to exclude the respondents from competition for the subject post, most particularly in the circumstances when their research area of thesis for Ph.D degree was Weed Science. In our view, the petitioner being well-equipped and having fair knowledge about the modern agricultural sciences and terminology, should have not raised cavil to the Ph.D degree of respondents. The Respondents No, 6 and 7 are in possession of Ph.D degrees in the relevant field (Weed Science), from the Universities, duly recognized by the Higher Education Commission.
7. Adverting to the .Other limbs of arguments of petitioner regarding comparison of experience of petitioner and Respondents No, 6 and 7, suffice it to say that the petitioner as per the averment of writ petition has entered into the university as lecturer vide order dated 6.3.2003, w,e,f, 17.22003 and since then teaching the Weed Science. Likewise the Respondents No, 6 and 7 have joined the same University as lecturer- w,e,f, 16.9.2002, hence their overall experience of teaching in the weed subjects comes to eleven years, despite the fact that the requisite experience for the post in question is prescribed as ten years. The contention of the counsel for petitioner that experience shall be reckoned from the regular appointment stands to no sound reasons. For the purpose of experience it is not necessary that a person must be serving against a post on regular basis. If a person teaching in a University, particularly at Post-Graduate level without taking any remuneration, it cannot be said that he has gained and acquired experience without any wages is not entitled for its benefits. Experience acquired in any manner cannot be taken away from a person merely because he has not been paid any remuneration or pay for the same. Experience means the accumulation of knowledge or skill which results from the direct participation in events or activities with or without any financial benefit. The meaning provided by Wikipedia (Free Encyclopedia), experience is the knowledge or mastery of an event or subject gained through involvement in or exposure to it. From the above definition, it can be easily gathered that infact, the experience is a process of getting knowledge or skill from doing, seeing or.Feeling of things practically.. It is born out from the record that the Respondents No, 6 and 7 are teaching the Weed Science in agricultural University of Peshawar to the B.Sc and M.Sc (lions) classes since 2003 and 2002 respectively, thus were having more than the requisite experience of teaching in the respondent university. Moreover, as per criteria laid down by the Higher Education Commission, the counting of experience gained during private/government job will depend upon the nature of experience and is to be decided by the University-Scrutiny Committee and Selection Board.
8. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he had made a complaint against Dr. Azeem Khan, member of the Selection Board, about his corruption the weed department of University of Agriculture, therefore, was not recommended for the appointment by the Selection Board due to the malice on the part of the above named member, is concerned, suffice it to observe that this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction cannot substitute opinion of the Selection Board on mere allegation of biasness of one of the member and that too after losing' the chance in the Selection Board. Besides, on complaint of the petitioner, regarding malice and biasness of Dr. Azeem Khan, Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University, constituted a special committee comprising of four members under the chairmanship of Professor Dr. Muhammad Naeem to probe into the matter.
The above referred committee after investigating the allegations, submitted its report suggesting punitive action as well as initiating disciplinary proceedings against the complainant/petitioner for leveling false and baseless allegations against the Scrutiny Committee and member of the Selection Board. In nutshell the allegation of malafide on the part of Dr. Azeem Khan, Chairman of the Weed Science Department has properly been addressed by the respondents. Moreover, the Chairman of the Department of Weed Science was statutory member, thus, his membership to the selection board cannot be controverted on the mere allegation of biasness. Besides, the selection board consist of seven members under the chairmanship of Vice Chancellor of the Agricultural University and Dr. Azeem Khan was not the sole member of the board to target the petitioner. As discussed in the preceding paras, the High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not expected to perform the functions of the selection authority in appointment matters so as to substitute its opinion for the competent authority. There is also no measuring apparatus with this Court to determine that the petitioner was deferred and not recommended for appointment by the Selection Board for the sole reason of his allegations against Dr. Azeem Khan. In this respect, reliance may be placed on judgments of august Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in case titled "Dr. Mir Alam Jan vs Dr. Muhammad Shehzad (2008 SCM R 960), "Asif Mehmood Chughtai, Advocate and 17 others Vs Gout: of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and others" (2000 SCM R 966), "Muhammad Ashraf Sangri Vs Federation of Pakistan and others" (2014 SCM R 157), and "Arshad Ali Tabassum Vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore" (2005 SCMR 112).
9. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the university authorities have carried the entire process of appointment in transparent, manner and properly assessed the credentials and experience of the candidate in accordance with the terms enumerated in the advertisement for the post. Even otherwise, it is settled law that in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, high Court does not set as a Court of appeal over the decisions of statutory bodies.In the judgment, rendered by this Court in the recent past in case titled "Dr. Rozina Gul Vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc" W.P. No, 3355P/2013, it was held that 'it is not the purpose and the remedies under Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to take away from those authorities the power and discretion properly vested in them by law and to substitute this Court as a body, making the decision. The function of the constitutional Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not to exercise an independent discretion of its own. It must not interfere in the decision of statutory bodies, unless it finds that the purported exercise of the discretion by the statutory body was ultra wires, either because it was exercised in bad faith or because as a result of misconstruing the provisions of the statute by which the discretion was conferred, it has purported to exercise the discretion when the conditions precedent to its exercise were not fulfilled or in exercising it, it has taken into consideration some matters which the statute forbids to be taken into consideration or it has failed to take into consideration some matter which the statute required to take into consideration.
10. In wake of the above discussion, this Writ Petition, being devoid of merit is dismissed