1. ' SHAHAB SARKI, J.--- It is the case of the petitioners that subsequent to an advertisement they applied for the posts of Primary School Teachers (PSTs) BPS-9 and they were duly allotted Seat Nos.
2. And admit cards. The petitioners appeared in the test, as required, and were declared successful in the written test and were referred for medical examination, character and antecedents, which was also cleared by them. Thereafter offer letters dated 12-2-2011 were issued to them.
3. ' The grievance of the petitioners is that after issuance of the said offer letters they were not issued posting orders, inspite of fulfilling all the requirements, and the respondents are accommodating influential persons, who have some backing. They have therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to issue posting orders of the petitioners.
4. ' The A.A.-G. Has conversely argued that a subsequent merit list was prepared, after scrutiny of all the applications and test results; in line with the policy of the Government of Sindh Education and Literacy Department Karachi No,SO(G-1)EDO-MA-9-14/93 dated July 10, 2008. It has further been submitted that as per the said policy 20 additional points were to be awarded to all the female candidates and when these additional points were awarded to the female candidates in the final combined merit list, the petitioners did not qualify as the number of posts available was less than the successful candidates and only those persons were accommodated, purely on merits, who received better marks. It is further submitted that only merit has been made the criteria and the respondents have followed the above referred policy in letter and spirit and the petitioners thus have no vested right as the offer made to the petitioners was conditional upon securing marks according to the merit list.
5. ' In rebuttal the Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the advertisement placed in the newspapers no mention was made for the aforesaid policy and they have been kept in the dark.
6. They further claimed that policy was not communicated to them. He has also relied on the case- law reported in PLC 2011 (C.S.) 709 (Ghulam Murtaza and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others).
7. ' We have heard the arguments of all the counsel, at length and have perused the material available on record. It is not denied that the petitioners possessed the academic qualifications and also cleared their written tests. It is also not denied that offer letters were issued to all the petitioners, however the said offers were conditional upon achieving qualifying marks. Condition-7 of the said offer letters/Call letter dated 12-2-2011 stipulates as follows:--- "7. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT: 'The contract shall be liable to terminate: (i)............................................................................................................................
8. (ii)...........................................................................................................................
(iii) ..........................................................................................................................
(iv) In case to have different domicile or below qualification for the post of the offer shall be treated as cancelled."
9. ' We have also examined the policy of the Government and it clearly stipulates that female candidates would be given 20 extra points and the petitioners have raised no objection as to the said conditions of the policy nor have they challenged any of its provisions. The offer letters, unless followed by acceptance and final appointment letters, does not in our view confer any vested right upon the petitioners. Upon final tabulation it was found that marks obtained by the petitioners were below the other candidates in the merit list. The respondents can only accommodate such number of persons against whom vacant posts are available and they are not bound to accommodate all the candidates who have been issued conditional offer letters. In such situation when the respondents are acting strictly in accordance with the policy, no mala fide can be attributed on their part. Moreover, the condition of 20 extra points for female candidates was in the policy formulated much prior to the advertisement and therefore, it cannot be said that it is an after thought to accommodate influential persons. In the judgment cited in PLC 2011 (C.S.) 709 Ghulam Murtaza and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others, we have noted that the petitioners after issuance of the offer letters were issued appointment orders and submitted joining reports. The petitioners were serving in the respective departments and thereafter subsequent withdrawal of appointment letters, without any show-cause notice, was held to be bad and not sustainable in law. In the instant case however, only conditional offers have been issued to the petitioners which has not been followed by any appointment letters. Hence, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel is distinguishable from the facts of the instant petition.
10. Keeping in view the above submissions, we are of the view that the offer letters of the petitioners were subject to condition-7 regarding the qualifying marks and no illegality has been committed by the respondents in awarding 20 extra points to the female candidates and subsequent preparation of the merit list, which is in accordance with law and policy. Since the offer letters have not been acted upon and no posting orders have been issued, therefore, the petitioners in our view cannot seek directions for issuance of posting orders. We have made extensive research on the subject and were able to lay our hands, in this regard to a decision given by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Asadullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others 2005 PLC (C.S.) 771, wherein the honourable apex Court dealt with the case of a petitioner who applied in the P.I.A.C. For appointment of Flight Steward and was given an offer letter for employment, however, he subsequently was not appointed in the department though he undertook training also. The petitioner in that case filed petition before honourable High Court of Sindh which was dismissed subsequently leave to appeal was filed before the honourable Supreme Court who after examination of the case observed in various paragraphs as under;--- "A bare perusal of the above mentioned letter would indicate that it is an offer simplicitor as is indicative from the subject of the letter i.e, Offer For Employment of P.I.A.C. The above mentioned "Offer" cannot be equated to that of "appointment". The letter reflects that the appellants were advised to report the Manager Employment P.I.A. C. For further action. In our view, the procedural formalities were completed by the above mentioned letter and it has got no concern with actual appointment.
7. We have carefully examined contents of the said letter as the same has been referred time and again by Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellants.
11. Clause 'C' of the above mentioned letter is demonstrative of the fact that the Offer for Employment in P.I.A.C. As Trainee Flight Steward was subject to completion of training. This letter by no stretch of imagination can be considered as an appointment letter and the subject of the letter also removes doubt if any and makes it abundant clear that it was an offer for employment in P.I.A.C.* as Trainee Flight Steward.
9. The second important question which needs determination would be as to whether any vested or legal right whatsoever was accrued in favour of the appellants and whether it was infringed due to their non-appointment as Flight Steward? After having gone through the entire record of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that no vested or legal right whatsoever was accrued in favour of the appellants, hence the question of its infringement does not arise. It is well-settled by now that unless it is established beyond any doubt that a person has guaranteed fundamental or legal right in his favour, causing of legal injury or loss does not arise.
12. ' No legal right whatsoever was conferred upon the appellants as an offer simplicitor far the appointment of Flight Steward was given for which completion of training was sine qua non which could not be completed. It hardly needs any elaboration that assessment of suitability for appointment being subjective assessment exclusively falls within the jurisdictional domain of appointing authority which cannot be compelled to make any appointment. The exercise of discretion, if it is fair and transparent cannot be justiciable in the absence of any mala fide-which though was alleged but could not be substantiated by producing any cogent and concrete evidence.
13. ' There is no violation of the provisions as contained in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as "equality of citizens" does not mean that all laws must apply to all the subjects or that all subjects must have the same rights and liabilities. The conception of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. The Article guarantees a similarity of treatment and not identical treatment.
14. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform. It means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the like should be treated alike, and that there should be no denial of any special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like and also equal subjection of all individuals and classes to the ordinary law of the land."
15. ' We also rely on an unreported judgment dated 24-11-2008 in Constitutional Petition No,D-670 of 2008 and Constitutional Petition No,D-1090 of 2008 wherein it was held that "Since the very act of respondents Officials changing of minimum requirements of passing written test change unilaterally without approval from competent authorities issuance of offer letters on the basis of candidates declared passed though acquired marks less than the minimum marks required to the eligible does not give any right to the petitioner to claim posting order on the basis of said offer letter. The offer letter since has not been acted upon by issuance of posting order and was issued on the basis of policy modified without approval from the competent authority, the petitioner cannot seek direction for issuance of posting order. The petitions for the forgoing reasons have no merits and accordingly dismissed in limini". Consequently, we dismiss this petition with no order as to costs along with listed applications.