' Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed as under:-- ' In view of above, it is humbly prayed, that this writ petition may kindly be graced with acceptance and the respondents may kindly be directed to recommend the name of the petitioners against the vacant/unfilled post of TRACER (BPS-7), and respondents further may kindly be directed to issue letter of appointment for TRACER in BPS-7 immediately to the petitioners in the supreme interest of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Respondent No, 2/MEPCO through a consolidated advertisement published 48 posts of TRACER (38 posts for open merits & 10 for employee son Quota) in a National Daily Newspaper in which the prescribed qualification for the above said post was Matric with two years Civil Draftsman Diploma from the recognized government institution; that the petitioners filed applications having three years Diploma of Associate Engineer in Civil Technology in which they appeared in NTS papers and obtained 36 marks (Petitioner No, 1) & 38 marks (Petitioner No, 2) respectively and the petitioners were interviewed but they have not been selected by Respondent No,
1. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners have filed applications against the post of TRACER (BPS-7) but they did not fulfill the prescribed criteria of two years Civil Draftsman Diploma, as such, they have rightly not been appointed by the Department Selection Committee (DSC), as such, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, 48 posts of TRACER (BPS-7) were advertised (38 for open merits & 10 for employees' son Quo ',a), in which, the required qualification was Matric with two years Civil Draftsman Diploma from the recognized government institution, whereas, the petitioners possessed three years Diploma of Associate Engineer in Civil Technology, as such, they have failed to fulfill the prescribed criteria as required under the law.
' Even otherwise, the Govt. Of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division, vide office memorandum dated 3rd March, 2015 recommended for amendments in Mechanism to ensure .Appointment on merit based recruitment in the Ministries/ Divisions/Sub-ordinate Offices/Autonomous/Semi-Autonomous Bodies/Corporations/Companies/Authorities and the assessm ent criterion of a candidate observed by the Department Selection Committee is as under:-- ' Further the DSC would assess the applicants as under:-- ' Relevant qualification/experience 30% ' Knowledge/Skill relevancy 40% and ' Personality/Interpersonal 30% ' Communication skills
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to establish any malice on the part of the members of the Recruitment/Department Selection Committee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite having qualified the test and interview they were not recommended for appointment is misconceived as from the perusal of the record the Department Selection Committee has rightly not, recommended them for appointment being below merit. It is settled law that this Court cannot substitute opinion of the Recruitment/Department Selection committee and on this same point, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Arshad Ali Tabassum vs. The Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore (2015 SCM R 112) held as under: "7. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not recommended for appointment by the committee due to the malice on the part of the members of the Interview Committee for the reason that his services were terminated as Civil Judge on the charge of misconduct, is concerned, suffice it to observe that according to the established principle of law this Court cannot substitute opinion of the Interview Committee on the bald allegation after losing the chance in the interview.
Reference is made to the case of Asif Mahmood Chughtai, Advocate and 17 others v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary & others (2000 SCM R 966), Dr. Mir Alum Jan v. Dr. Muhammad Shahzad & others (2008 SCM R 960) and Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan & others (2014 SCM R 157). In such circumstances, the petitioner could not establish any malice on the part of the interview Committee. There is also no measuring apparatus with this Court to determine that the petitioner was deferred in the interview by the Interview Committee only for the sole reason of his misconduct as Civil Judge. It is presumed that the Interview Committee must have given the petitioner marks after judging his ability without being influenced by the earlier misconduct of the petitioner as the Interview Committee was not acting as Disciplinary Committee dealing with the misconduct of the petitioner. Since the petitioner could not fulfil the requisite criteria for the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, therefore, he was not recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee, thus, no illegality has been committed by the respondent while acting on the recommendations of the Examination Committee warranting interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction."
' As such, both the petitioners have failed to fulfill the criteria as required under the law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the recruitment c process of Department Selection Committee and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect.
7. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed in limine being misconceived and devoid of any merits.