Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islam ic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 petitioner had made prayer for issuance of direction to respondents to appoint him as Ward Servant (BS-1) at District Sargodha being eligible for the said post under the disabled quota.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that petitioner applied for the post of Ward Servant (BS- 1) against disabled quota in different departments including the one available at DHQ Hospital, Health Department, Sargodha on the basic qualification of middle pass. After participating in the recruitment process, the petitioner claimed to have stood first in the merit list of the disabled persons but unfortunately he was ignored. His representation for the redressal of his grievance was also rejected on 07.12.2015. He had also filed an application before the Ombudsman, Punjab which was decided on 19.08.2015 directing the respondents to pass the order in the matter within 15 days but they did not, hence this writ petition.
3. In the repot and parawise comments submitted by respondents No.1 and 2, it was stated that according to the preliminary merit list, the petitioner stood at No.1 but after the interview conducted on 21.04.2015 his name was placed at Sr. No. 6 of the final merit list. It was their stand that the petitioner did not appear in the interview held on 17.08.2015. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No.4, it was stated that the order passed by the Ombudsman, Punjab has been implemented when the impugned order was passed.
4. A stand was taken before this Court by the learned law officer assisted by Muhammad Ammar Yasir, Health Educator that petitioner was placed at Sr . No. 6 with the following particulars.
Sr.
No.Name With Father NameAddress Domicile Date of BirthHafi z-A- Qur anQualificationMarks Disability CertificateTotal MarksInterview MarksG.
TotalRemarks Edu 6Muhammad House Sargodha 20.09.1990 B.A. 50 attached 50 15 65Not Awais S/O nazeer AhmadNo.
4/s/85, Block Selected No.3, Sargodha 0332 7532309 The final merit list reveals that 8 persons were awarded 65 marks each in total and only Umer Hayat was appointed. The case of the respondents side is that since Umer Hayat was born on 01.08.1994 whereas petitioner was born on 20.09.1990, therefore, he was appointed being senior in age. The stand taken by the petitioner side is that petitioner is B.A. and was the most educated competitor in the list, who was granted only 15 marks in interview which is minimum marks awarded to any candidate just to facilitate said respondent/Umer Hayat.
5. Arguments heard, available record perused.
6. Keeping in view the stand taken by the respective parties it is clear that:- a. Education wise, the petitioner is highly qualified. b. Petitioner is disabled under recognized disability certificate. c. He was awarded the lowest marks in the interview . d. The grand total marks awarded to the petitioner were equal to the candidate who was appointed. e. Petitioner is younger than Umer Hayat.
6. It would be relevant to refer, firstly , Recruitment Policy 2013 prescribed for the induction of educators , under which in case of tie between two or more candidates the senior in age is to be given preference. Para 13 (c) of the Recruitment Policy , 2013 is reproduced as under:-
13. MERIT LIST. a) b) c) The merit list will be arranged in descending order of the highest marks and in case two or more candidates have the same marks, then the senior in age will be given preference".
Secondly , under the Centralized Joint PG Induction System issued by Government of Punjab Special Health Care and Medical Education Department, determination of merit has to be based on the principle of seniority in age where candidates have secured equal marks. Relevant para is reproduced as under:- DETERMINA TION OF MERT : The Merits shall be determined as per following formula: JCAT for MS, MD & MDS/FCPS Part-I Examination Marks=35 Academic and Experience Marks=50 Entrance Test/Part-1 Examination of MS/MD/FCPS-1 Marks: ........................................... ........................................... ...........................................
The candidates who secure equal marks but fall on merit, the preference shall be given to the candidate whose age is more than other candidates.
Thirdly , under para 20 of Punjab Public Service Commission General Instructions for total criteria for final merit wherever the interview and screening test are equal the one who is older in age will be senior on merit , which is reproduced as under:-
20. CRITERIA FOR FINAL MERIT Final merit list after the interviews for BS-16 & 17 posts would be prepared on the basis of interviews only in non- test cases and on the basis of aggregate marks of screening (MCQ) test and interview in test cases whereas for BS-18 and above posts, final merit list shall be based on aggregate of marks obtained in written (descriptive) test and the interview . The following criteria shall be followed for drawing final merit list:- a) When aggregate marks of screening (MCQ) test/ written (descriptive) test and interview in respect of more than one candidate are equal, the one who gets higher marks in interview be treated as senior in merit. b) When marks of interview and screening (MCQ) test/ written (descriptive) test are also equal, one who is older in age be treated as senior in merit. c) When marks in interview and screening (MCQ) test/ written (descriptive) test are equal as well as date of birth is the same then the one who possesses higher academic qualifications such as M.Phil or Ph.D. in the prescribed field where minimum required qualification is Master 's Degree, may be treated as senior in merit. d) In case of equivalence at (a), (b) & (c) above, the one who has acquired higher Grade/Division/higher percentage of marks in the minimum prescribed qualification may be treated as senior in merit. e) In case of equivalence at (a), (b), (c) & (d) above, the one who has acquired the minimum prescribed qualification earlier than the other candidate, may be treated as senior .
Fourthly, the most relevant case law under the Indian jurisdiction is the case titled "Shweta Sadyal versus State of H.P. & Ors. reported 2015(2) HIM. L.R. 1214, wherein it was held by the Himachal Pardesh High Court that candidate scoring high in interview will be given preference in case of tie. Relevant extracts of para 9 is reproduced as under:- "9. Now what would be the relevance of these rules has been dealt with in detail by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Manish Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra), wherein the aforesaid provision was considered along with a circular issued by the State Government, which provided that the final order of merit of the candidates in the event of tie of marks would be determined on the basis of the fact that the candidate higher in age will be ranked senior."
7. Keeping in view the above discussion, I am of the considered view that age is the prime consideration in case of tie between candidate of equal merit, notwithstanding the higher educational qualification. The reason behind this may be the respect of human being for his experience and observation increasing his wisdom in life and the academic achievements cannot be its substitute. The other reason which can be adopted is that more opportunities are waiting for a person having the higher educational background as compared to the person senior in age who has exhausted his energies and may have the last opportunity for his employment.
8. In this view of the matter , this writ petition has been found merit less and is, therefore, dismissed.