MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J.---The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the Federal Public Service Commission ("FPSC") announced certain posts of various cadres in the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantts/ Garrisons), the Ministry of Defence Islamabad. The petitioner applied for the posts of Assistant Head Mistress and Vice Principal respectively. In response Whereof, Roll Number slips for both positions were issued.
Thereafter, she appeared in written test conducted by the FPSC. Subsequently, she received two letters dated 21st October, 2013 and 25th November, 2013, wherein her candidature was rejected due to deficiency in the requisite qualification. The petitioner has impugned the rejection of her candidature and sought directions to be issued to the respondent/FPSC to allow her to appear in the interview/viva voce.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after determination of her eligibility two separate roll number slips for the applied positions were issued on the basis whereof, she participated in written test. He stated that on the eve of announcement of results her candidature was rejected on erroneous ground she did not submit hard copies of her applications after submitting online applications. In addition her candidature for the post of Assistant Headmistress was rejected due to deficiency in the requisite qualification and misconceived reasons were assigned that she did not possess B-Ed. Degree (Bachelor of Education). He submitted that the petitioner possesses a Post-graduate degree in education, i.e. M.A. Education, awarded by the Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta ("the University"), therefore, she meets the requisite eligibility, and in support of his contention he referred to letter No. 8-61/HEC/A&A/2009/5116, dated 26th November, 2009 (appended with the memo. Of petition) 'isued by the Assistant Director, Higher Education Commission ("HEC"), wherein the Master of Arts in Education (M.A. Education) has been recognized as equivalent to M.Ed. (Master of Education). He contended that HEC is the sole authority in the country to determine the equivalence of degrees awarded by universities, therefore, in view of recognition-cum-equivalence by the HEC no occasion was available to the FPSC to have turned down the candidature of the petitioner. He urged that since, after determination of her eligibility, she was allowed to take written test, on basis whereof, she acquired a legal vested right to participate in the interviews/viva voce, therefore, the impugned letters pertaining to the rejection of petitioner's candidature may be declared to have been issued without any lawful authority and justification with further directions to the respondents/FPSC to allow the petitioner to participate in the interviews/viva voce.
3. The pre-admission notice, vide this Court order .Dated 23.12.2013, was issued to the respondents/FPSC. The representative of FPSC appeared on subsequent date and filed comments along with the relevant Rules and minutes of the meeting dated 16.2.2002 held in FPSC. Ch. MumtazYousuf learned Standing Counsel contended that thepetitioner did nOt submit the hard copy of her application within the prescribed time, therefore the FPSC was unable to determine her eligibility before the written test but to avoid any injustice she was allowed to appear in written examination. Subsequently, on scrutiny she was found ineligible for the post. The learned standing counsel further pointed out that for ihe post of Vice Principal the petitioner had not submitted a hard copy of her application with term of reference (TOR) and the supporting documents, while for the post of Assistant Headmistress, though, she had submitted hard copy of her application, but that too was delayed by one day. He next stated that for the post of Assistant Headmistress the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification. He further feferred to the minutes of meeting of the FPSC dated 16.2.2002, whereby a Master's Degree or equivalent qualification and B.Ed. Degree were prescribed for both the said posts. He finally urged that since the petitioner does not meet the prescribed criteria, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance. A careful consideration of the respective contentions from both sides and perusal of the documents appended with the petition and parawise comments, manifests that in this case the controversy revolves around the question, that, whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for the subject posts. However, we shall first attend to the contention that the petitioner acquired a legal vested right after taking the written test. In this regard- Rule 15(b) contained in the general instructions of the application form is relevant, which stipulates, that:--- "Eligibility of the candidates in terms of recruitment rules and the advertised conditions shall be determined after the conduct of screening/ professional test/examination. On-detailed scrutinyof the application if they are found ineligible, the candidature will be cancelled irrespective of the fact, whether they have appeared in the examination/test or even qualifies therein. On rejection of applicant's candidature on the basis of their ineligibility, the applicant would be informed by the commission defining the reason of their ineligibility. The rejected candidates on submission of their representation shall be heard by the commission's committee. The candidates should, therefore, make sure before appearing in the examination/test, that they are eligible in all respects for the post they have applied for."
In view of the above Rule the contention that once the petitioner was allowed to take the written tests, she acquired a legal vested right to also appear in the viva voce is not correct, because the referred to Rule of the FPSC stipulates, "that appearing in written examination does not create a right to appear in interview/viva voce". Needless to add here that the referred to rules of the FPSC are part of General Instructions contained in application form, which was duly signed by the intended candidates, therefore, presumed to have been read, understood and accepted.
5. The stipulated qualifications for both the applied posts were the same, and are reproduced hereunder:- ' "MINIMUM QUALIFICATION (i) Second class or grade-C Master's Degree or equivalent qualification, (ii) B.Ed. "
The prescribed qualification was a Master's degree in any discipline and B.Ed. Degree. The decision of FPSC, while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is according to its mandate, whereby the FPSC, when considering the eligibility of the candidate who possesses M.Ed-. Degree, had decided that where the prescribed qualification is second class master's degree with B.Ed. Or M.Ed. Then, the candidates holding Master's degree in any discipline and with B.Ed. Or M.Ed. Degree will be considered eligible, in the instant case the petitioner possesses a degree in Master of Arts (Education), which is two years post-graduation degree and she does not possess B.Ed. Degree (one year duration). That in addition to Master's degree in any discipline, a degree of B.Ed. Was also required to qualify for both the positions, however, the petitioner only has one qualification.
The letter dated 26th November, 2009 issued by the HEC is also not helpful to the petitioner since the referred to letter was issued in response to the letter of the Registrar of the University, whereby the equivalence of Master of Arts in Education was solicited. The reply of the HEC was referred to as certificate of equivalence but on perusal it reveals that the same is general in nature and does not mention a particular university, rather it mentions in clear terms that equivalence is to be determined on individual merit and while seeking any sort of equivalence, the documents are to be submitted on the prescribed equivalence proforma and all the original documents are needed to be shown. Needless to add here that the reply of the HEC shall not be applicable ipso facto and allsolicited equivalences are required to be dealt on individual basis.
' AtImittedly, the petitioner possesses only a Master's Degree and does not have a B.Ed. Degree. She was, therefore, not qualified, as the stipulated requirement was to have two A degrees, which she does not have, resultantly she cannot beallowed to appear in interview/viva voce.
6. The Hon'ble apex Court in the cases of Dr. Muhammad Hussain 's case (PLD 2003 SC 143) and Government of Punjab through Secretary (S&GAD), Lahore v. ZafarMaqbool Khan and another (2012 SCM R 686), when dealing with the identical nature of proposition, has held that it is the prerogative of the Government to prescribe the requisite qualification for a particular post and prescribing'the stipulated qualification a scientific development and increasing technical know-how cannot be ignored. Therefore, the eligibility of a candidate is to be determined in accordance with the advertisement for the post keeping in view, the stipulated requirements and not otherwise.
The upshot of above discussion is that a non-qualified person cannot be appointed to a particular post, the same would also not be in the interest of students and the institution. Eligibility cannot be created and thereby foisted in violation of the requisite qualification. Since the petitioner could not establish that she has the stipulated qualifications she fails the preliminary test of an aggrieved person, therefore, the petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.