1. ' AZHAR SALEEM BABAR, J. --- Through the instant writ petition filed under Section 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, petitioner has sought direction against the non-petitioners to set aside the appointment orders of non-petitioners No, 8 and 9 being without lawful authority and to re-advertise the posts for appointment in accordance with law. The University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad advertised some positions of Lecturers including the subject of Bio- Technology (BS-18). Petitioner claims to be eligible for the post in question on the basis of her degree. Claim of the Petitioner is that Ghassan Zahid, non-petitioner, does not qualify for the job of Lecturer in Bio Technology as he is in possession of ' Master's-Degree Agriculture, so, she has questioned the appointment of non petitioner petitioner No, 8 through the instant writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has the following academics to her credits:-- "(a) M.Phil. (Micro Biology) from Quaid e- Azam University, Islamabad. - (b). M.S Bio Technology University, Lahore.
2. Copies of relevant degree/certificates have been attached with the memorandum of the Writ petition .It is the contention of the petitioner that her degree is relevant to the post of Lecturer(BS- 18) in the Subject of Bio Technology, whereas degree held by respondent No.8 is not relevant to the advertised subject.It is worth mentioning that Ghassan Zahid, respondent, holds the degree of Msc.Honour (M. Phil) in "Plant breeding and Molecular Genetics". University of Poonch/Rawalkot has issued a certificate attached with the written statement as Annexure "RA/1" which shows that Ghassan Zahid is fully capable and eligible for the lectureship in Bio Technology.It has further certified that his degree in "plant Breeding and molecular Genetics", Agriculture is totally relevant to Bio Technology ,it has further been mentioned that eminent scholars in the institutions of Pakistan hold the same kind of degree in the department of Bio technology, University of Faisalabad and Peshawar .Another example has been quoted that Professor Dr. Dil Nawaz Gardezi, Vice-Chancellor, as he then was, holds the degree of "Plant Breeding and Molecular Genetics" and is a part of faculty of Bio Technology and has been teaching Bio Technology courses alongside Ph.D. Scholars.
3. ' The University of AJ&K, Muzaffarabad advertised two posts of lecturers (BS-18) in the department of Bio Technology and respondents No, 8 and 9 have been appointed on recommendations of Selection Committee. The appointments of these respondents have further been authenticated by Syndicate. Higher Education Commission has issued an equivalence certificate on request of Ghassan Zahid, non-petitioner, which is a part of record as Annexure "RD/1". It states as under:--- "The Committee decided to equate M.Sc. (Honour) Agriculture degree awarded by Pakistani Universities after B.Sc. (Hons) degree (4 years course after F.Sc) in Agriculture as equivalent to M.Phil for the purpose of job and other benefits etc. In accordance with the afore-mentioned decision, 2-year Master of Science (Hons) Agriculture with Specialization in Plant Breeding and Molecular Genetics degree held by you from University of AJ&K, Muzaffarabad after "B.Sc. (Hons)
4. Agriculture). 16-year schooling" can be considered as equivalent to M.Phil. For the purpose of job and other benefits etc."
5. ' Post of lecturer in the University of AJ&K is of BS-18. Obviously, a lecturer has to impart education to students in the relevant field. In such state of affairs, basic degree of graduation, in my estimation, gains more importance. If this aspect is taken into consideration, it transpires that petitioner completed her B.Sc. (Hons) from GC University Lahore in the subject of Bio Technology. She further completed her M.Sc. (Hons) from Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad in Micro Biology. On the other hand, Ghassan Zahid, non-petitioner, is a graduate in Agriculture from University of Poonch/Rawalakot. Although, he has gone through some courses of Bio Technology but the petitioner has undergone more courses in Bio Technology in her BSC. (Hons) program. However, these reservations do not help the petitioner's case for 02 reasons:--- No, 1: That Higher Education Commission (HEC) has issued an equivalence certificate to Ghassan Zahid which states that his M.Phil. Degree is relevant to the subject of Bio Technology and is good for appointment as lecturer in the field of Bio Technology.
6. No, 2: The second reason is that a high profile selection board has considered the academic credentials, of the petitioner and the private non-petitioner and has declared the private non- petitioner as suitable for the job of lecturer Bio Technology.
7. ' It is an admitted fact that the petitioner appeared before the selection board in pursuance of advertisement, however, 'she was not recommended for the job. The University of AJ&K has attached minutes of meeting of the selection board held on 19th-21st August, 2014. It states that selection board consisted of 14 members, out of whom 5 were the subject experts. It further transpires that Prof. Dr. Qaiser Mahmood Department of Bio Technology, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology Abbottabad participated as member of the board as subject expert. There is no doubt that degree held by Ghassan Zahid is relevant to the subject of Bio Technology for lectureship and it was for the subject experts and the selection board to evaluate the degrees held by the contesting litigants. Selection Board, after thorough examination, concluded that Ghassan Zahid and Mst. Sundus Khawaja are suitable for the posts of lecturer in Bio Technology. So, wisdom of the selection board cannot be substituted by the High Court in a writ petition. The petitioner cannot claim appointment as lecturer in Bio Technology on the basis of better qualification. It is also worth mentioning that petitioner appeared before the selection board and was not recommended for the job, so, she cannot challenge the proceedings undertaken by selection board. This view finds support from a case titled "Tabassum Arif v. AJ&K Govt. & others" (2013 SCR 134) apex Court has further relied upon 2001 SCR 481 and 2002 SCR 527 and has concluded that if a person participated in proceedings and fails to achieve desired result, he cannot turn around and challenge the process. In another case reported as 2012 PLC (CS) 795 SC AJ&K, the apex Court has held as under:- "It may be observed that one cannot blow both hot and cold in one breath. Both the petitioners in the High Court on the one hand challenged the proceedings of Selection-Committee and on the other hand they prayed that the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee be corrected and they be appointed on the basis of result of said corrected merit list. The petitioner cannot take contradictory stands in the writ petitions. Either they have to challenge the proceedings of Selection Committee on the ground that it was not legally constituted or they can pray for correction of merit list. Contradictory stands cannot be taken by a party in writ petition .This view finds support from a case reported as Muhammad aftab Khan v .District Education Officer and 2 others (2001 PLC(CS.)28.")
8. ' In a case titled "Dr Abdul Ghaffar Sulehria v Azad Govt. & 4 others" 2008 SCR 230, it was observed by the Supreme Court of AJ&K as under:--- "Now attending to the second point whether the findings or -recommendations made by a Selection Board while determining the fitness of an incumbent to hold a post is sacrosanct and immune from judicial .Review and that no appeal lies to the Service Tribunal, we may in the very outset admit the legal position that .The appeal to the Service Tribunal doesn't lie against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness, or otherwise of a person to be appointed or to hold a particular post or to a promoted the higher grade." it may be observed here that petitioner has not disputed the qualification of respondent No.9 in the Writ petition, so, any comment to that extent is avoided.
9. ' Upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition, being devoid of legal force, is dismissed with no order, as to costs.