Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed that the recruitment process of scrutiny and second short listing of candidates by the Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture, Multan may be declared illegal, void and against the law.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1/ Muhammad Nawaz Sharif University of Agriculture, Multan got published an advertisement in the Daily Express on 14.02.2015 whereby certain vacancies in Admin Section and of lower staff of different branches of the University including three posts of Admin Officer (BS-16) were announced. According to the advertisement, for the posts of Admin Officer (BS-16), the candidates were required to be graduate in minimum with 10 years office experience till 25.02.2015. In total 386 candidates submitted their applications for the said post. Subsequently vide Notification No.1108, dated 24.02.2015 respondent No.4 constituted a three-member scrutiny committee and vide Notification No.1148, dated 11.03.2015 standard and procedure for interview of the candidates was evolved by the Syndicate of the University whereby the following yardstick for scrutinizing the applications of various non-teaching posts was made:-
1. Applications must be signed by the applicant himself
2. Experience Certificate (as required in various categories) must have some dispatch No. And date of relevant firm/ organization.
3. Age relaxation as per standing Govt. Instruction i.e.; 5 years across the board.
4. Valid CNIC.
The scrutiny committee as per procedure given above short listed 21 candidates wherein the name of the petitioner figured at Sr.No.5. The said list was duly signed by one member of the scrutiny committee namely, Wazir Ahmad (Lecturer Social Science). Thereafter, through letter dated 19.05.2015 various candidates with mala fide intention were called to make up the deficiency of their applications. Then vide letter dated 03.07.2015 the written test of the candidates was conducted. After written test, respondents No.7 to 10 were declared to be successful and they were to be called for interview.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the letter dated 19.05.2015 whereby the candidates were required to make up their deficiency is highly contrary to the advertisement after the due date; that Notification No.1108 dated 24.02.2015 and Notification No.1148 dated 11.03.2015 are only for short listing of candidates and no written test was mentioned therein, therefore, the respondent-university conducted the written test without any law; that the candidates having 10 years office experience were eligible for interview and recruitment but the respondent No.8 whose experience is less than 10 years (9 years and 10 months) has been short listed in the second short list and called for interview although he was not found eligible in the first short list; that some of the candidates having less experience and were not eligible have been short listed in the second list; that under the garb of written test the respondents No.7 to 10 have been managed to be scrutinized; that the impugned procedure has been adopted without any resolution of the Syndicate, therefore, the same is fanciful, arbitrary and misuse of authority; and that the respondent No.6 who is Principal of University of Agricultural of Faisalabad sub campus at Burewala, District Vehari has been seized with the matter being Chairman whereas under Section 12(5) of the Muhammad Nawaz Sharif University of Agricultural, Multan Act, 2013 only a teacher of the University can be assigned with such duty, therefore, the exercise conducted by the respondents is without lawful authority. He further contended that the petitioner is working as Admin Officer on daily wages for the last three years in the University and there was a chance that he will succeed but to oust the petitioner, the written test has been introduced to favour some blue eyed persons.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the University was a new borne entity, therefore, in the first meeting of Syndicate dated 28.11.2014 the terms and conditions for the appointments in the University were prepared; that after the advertisement scrutiny committee was constituted vide Notifications No.1108 dated 24.2.2015; under the criteria of advertisement and vide Notification No.1148 dated 11.3.2015 preliminary eligible candidates was prepared but the Vice Chancellor directed to inform all ineligible candidates about their deficiency in compliance with Notification No.PS-2(7)16780 dated 22.09.2008; that after making up deficiency by the ineligible candidates the number of eligible candidates increased from 21 to 38; that after that according to Faisalabad University Rules and decisions of the Syndicate the criteria for selection of the candidates for each post after scrutiny of documents was revised as under:- i) If the applicants/ candidates are less than 10 against each one post, then the interview will be held. ii) If the applicants/ candidates are more than 10, then as per short-listing law, the screening/ written test will be held; that since there were three posts for Admin Officer and the candidates after scrutiny of documents were more than 10 against each post i.e. 38, therefore, a screening/ written test was arranged as per rules and decision of the Syndicate; that the screening/ written test by another independent university was held on 08.07.2015 wherein the petitioner was failed, therefore, he was not found eligible for the post. Further contended that on verification the experience certificate furnished by the petitioner was also found bogus and it was also found that earlier he has been removed from service in the Punjab Highway Patrol but he concealed this fact to this Court as well as before the University. Further contended that since there were no rules of the University at present, therefore, to fill up the vacant posts the rules of University of Agriculture, Faisalabad were adopted; that the respondent No.6 participated in the recruitment process as Chairman under Sections 27(1)(a) of Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture Multan Act, 2013 and Section 12(5)(a) of the University of Agriculture Faisalabad Act, 1973; that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. Through advertisement published in daily Express dated 14.02.2015, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif University of Agriculture, Multan invited applications for various vacant posts including Admin Officer (BS-16) and the last date for submission of applications was 25.02.2015. According to the advertisement, the candidates having Graduation with minimum second division along with office experience of 10 years were entitled to submit their applications for the posts of Admin Officers. The petitioner also submitted his application for the said post. It is pertinent to mention here that when the advertisement was made, the rules of the University were not promulgated and the administration was being run by the decisions of the Syndicate. The Chairman of the University vide Notification No.1108 dated 24.02.2015 constituted a three-member scrutiny committee and vide Notification No.1148 dated 11.03.2015 the yardstick for scrutinizing the applications/ short listing, as mentioned in para-2 above, was made. In the light of the above instructions, the scrutinizing committee short listed 21 candidates out of 386 and the name of the petitioner figured in the said list at serial No.5. When the said short list was brought before the Vice Chancellor he directed the committee to inform the ineligible candidates accordingly. Upon which the University sent letters to the ineligible candidates. Letter No.1399, dated 19.05.2015 annexed with this petition as Annex-E sent to one Qazi Mujahid Abbas reads as under:- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHREEF UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, LAHORE.
No. 1399 Dated: 19.05.2015 "11. Qazi Mujahid Abbas s/o Qazi Abdul Majeed Subject: REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS ADMIN OFFICER (BS-16)
Reference your application for application as Junior Clerk (BS-16) in the Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture, Multan you are informed that your applicantion for the subject post does not fulfill the estimate of eligibility for appointment as such you application has been rejected on the following grounds:-
1. One pic missing, documents not attested, experience certificate without No. & Date, not valid experience.
You are advised to remove the above objection by 01.06.2015 failing which you will not be called for interview. -sd- NAZIR AHMAD SHAHID Deputy Registrar"
The above letter clearly shows the mala fide of the University as the same has been issued against terms of para-3 of Notification No.PS-2(7) 16780, dated 22.09.2008 (annexed with the written reply as Annex-E) which is reproduced as under:- "(iii) The ineligible candidates may be intimated about the rejection of their applications giving opportunity of appeal before the Vice Chancellor within 10 days."
According to the above said terms, the University was only required to inform the ineligible candidates so that they can prefer an appeal to the Vice Chancellor within 10 days, if so advised but not to get filled the lacunas by them.
7. Thereafter, the University issued Notification No.1546 dated 20.06.2015 which reads as under:- "The Syndicate in its meeting held on 10.06.2015 adopted following procedure for short listing of candidates for appointments of staff of the Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture:- Short listing will be made if the number of applicants against one post exceed 10.
The following procedure may be adopted for short listing the candidates:- 1) (a) The academic merit of the candidates would be assessed in accordance with the following formula:- Certificate/Degree 1st Div. 2nd Div. 3rd Div.
" " " Matric 08 marks 05 marks 0 marks F.A/F.Sc/ B.A/B.Sc. M.A/M.Sc. " " " " " "
(b) In addition to above, a candidate holding M.Phil degree from local University of M.Phil/M.A/M.Sc./ M.S. From foreign University will be awarded 4 marks. Similarly, a candidate holding Ph.D. Degree will be awarded 08 marks. However, total marks awarded will not exceed 40 in ay case.
2) All thoese candidates who have obtained at least 70% marks out of the total marks allocated for academic merit would be called for interview.
3) If the above mentioned formula does not serve the purpose in certain subject, written test will be arranged.
4) The procedure, context and conduct of the written test will be within the following frame work:-
(i) Syllabus for written test will pertain to the subject concerned as prescribed by University for postgraduate level viz. M.A/ M.Sc. And equivalent. The admission letters will be issued to the eligible candidates at least ten days before the date of the test. The letters will contain date time and place of the test along with other relevant instructions.
(ii) (a) Written test paper shall be of MCQs type carrying 100 questions of 100 marks. There will be five choices. However, there shall be NEGATIVE MARKING of 1/4 to the assigned marks for every incorrect choice. The minimum qualifying marks will be 50%. The duration of test will be 90 minutes.
(b) Merit for interview shall be determined on the basis of the marks obtained in the paper, subject to specific minimum limit;
(iii) The paper setters, examiners and the other relevant staff will be appointed by the Vice Chancellor.
(iv) Admission letters will contain the scope date, time and place of the test along with other relevant instructions."
According to above said criteria 38 candidates were short listed out of 386 and the name of the petitioner figured at Sr.No.6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the advertisement was made no such criteria was given/ mentioned by the University and the first short list was made on the basis of the criteria mentioned in the advertisement but the second short list was made after the delay of three months. It is very astonishing that the candidates in the said list at Sr.No.22 (respondent No.8), Sr.No.31 (respondent No.9), Sr.No.33 (respondent No.10) and Sr.No.38 (respondent No.7) could not be short listed in the first list of eligible candidates. The second short list also reflects that the candidate at Sr.No.22 (respondent No.8) was having less than 10 years experience (9 years and 10 months) as well as candidate at Sr.No.25 was having 9 years 11 months and 9 days but even then they have been short listed. The respondents No.7 to 10 who were not found eligible in the first short list or lacking prescribed experience have qualified for the interview which clearly shows the mala fide of the respondent-university that some blue eyed persons have been accommodated. There is another aspect of the case that in the notification dated 20.06.2015 it was clearly mentioned that written test paper shall be of MCQs type carrying 100 questions of 100 marks but MCQs test of only 50 questions of 50 marks was taken. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the petitioner was previously a constable and he did not have the requisite experience of office work and that he has also not come through clean hands as he was removed from service from the Punjab Highway Patrol but he has concealed this fact, therefore, he is not eligible on this fact alone.
7. In the case of Amanullah Khan vs. District Nazim, Mianwali and 3 others (2004 PLC (CS) 1110) it has been declared that no law conferred a right to the petitioner to be appointed by the authorities but the petitioner had right to demand that the authorities should determine his application in accordance with law, fair play, reasonably and equitably. In the case of Shaikh Zayed Hospital and Post Graduate Medical Institutes through Chairman and Dean and another vs. Dr. Muhammad Saeed and another (2010 PLC (CS) 967), it has been maintained that discretion of the public functionaries must strictly be within the framework of the law. In the absence of legislation, it must stand the test of fairness, procedural propriety, reasonableness, logic, transparency and good governance. Thus examining the matter from any angle, the above procedure adopted by the respondent-University does not pass the test of lawful exercise of discretion. Another aspect of the case is that the respondent-University issued advertisement mentioning therein the eligibility conditions of the candidates but later on followed the procedure other than the prescribed in the advertisement which also shows that the colourful exercise of the respondent-University was to accommodate the favourites and blue-eyed persons. No doubt in the proposition that the Syndicate can frame rules, procedure and criteria for any purpose but any decision taken by the University Authorities would have prospective effect. It could not be given effect retrospectively. In the case in hand, the procedure and rules framed subsequent to the issuance of the advertisement have given retrospective effect which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
8. In view of what has been stated above, this constitutional petition is allowed and the process already adopted by the respondent-University is set aside. The respondent-University is directed to fill the posts of Admin Officer (BS-16) by following the criteria already given in the advertisement without fear, favour, nepotism and strictly in accordance with law.