' MUSARRAT HILALI, J.--- Petitioners, through instant petition, seek issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to appoint them on the post of PET being the holder of highest qualification and on top of merit list.
2. Facts as divulged from the petition are that respondent No.1 advertised certain posts including Physical Education Teacher (BPS-15). The petitioners applied for the same among st others, however, after due process they were placed at Sr.Nos.1 and 2 of the merit list. Subsequently, the petitioners' names were deleted/ousted from the merit list on the ground that prescribed qualification for the post in question is Junior Diploma in Health and Physical Education while the petitioners were holding Senior Diploma in Health and Physical Education, hence, this petition.
3. Comments were asked from respondent No.1, which have been received and placed on file, wherein, it is stated that qualification for the disputed post is JDPE while the petitioners are Senior Diploma Holders in Physical Education. Further, it is asserted that the notice of writ petition in hand was received by respondent No.1 on 26.5.2014 while the appointment, cancellation and substitution had taken place on 8.5.2014.
4. Along with the comments, respondent No.1 has placed on record the merit list for the purpose. On perusal of the same, both the petitioners are on top i.e. 1st and 2nd of the merit list having scored high marks than others. With regard to the status of SDPE, this court in W.Ps.719 of 2002 and 1472 of 2003 decided on 4.10.2002 and 15.12.2003, respectively, has allowed SDPE's diploma holders to compete and later on were appointed having better merit position.
5. The prescribed qualification for the post in question is B.A., B.Sc., or equivalent eligibility with one year Junior Diploma in Physical Education course or equivalence certificate from Pak Army or other equivalence eligibility. Admittedly, the petitioners are holding Senior Diploma in Physical Education and if their qualification was not equivalent to the requisite qualification/criteria, then a question arises why their applications were entertained and why they were allowed to A participate in the whole process of recruitment. Once the petitioners took part in the entire process of recruitment and got high scoring position, then a vested right has accrued in their way, which cannot be taken away without bringing on record any cogent and strong reason, moreso, when in the above noted writ petitions, the SDPE's holders were allowed to compete for the purpose and subsequently appointed having high merit position, hence the case of the petitioners being on the same footing, therefore, they cannot be dealt with different yardstick.
' For the aforementioned reasons, the petition in hand is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on the post of PET.