AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- Through this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Recruitment Policy ("Policy") dated 13.10.2017 being against the fundamental rights of the Petitioner.
2. The basic grievance of the Petitioner is that in terms of the policy the educational qualification for the post of SESE (DM) (BS-14) is a Masters degree in Fine Arts.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that previously the qualification was a B.A. or B.Ed. alongwith one year diploma in Fine Arts issued by any recognized Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE). The Petitioner is a B.A. with one year diploma in Fine Arts, therefore, as per the previous policy he is eligible for the appointment to the post of SESE (DM) (BS-14). Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner made an effort to obtain the diploma in fine arts and having obtained the same the Petitioner is now been informed that under the new policy the djploma is no longer relevant and that a Masters Degree in Fine Arts is required for the purpose of SESE (DM) (BS-14). Learned counsel argued that it is against his fundamental rights. Placed reliance on Siraj-ur-Rehman Jasra v. Government of Punjab and others (2017 PLC (C.S)1361).
4. Reply and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Learned Law Officer argued that the Petitioner has challenged the Policy decision of the Respondent wherein the qualification for the post of SESE (DM) (BS-14) for recruitment has been fixed. He argued that policy making falls within the domain of the executive and since there is no allegation of mala fide or colourful exercise of authority, the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. Learned Law Officer states that the intent of the Respondents is to improve the standard of the teaching faculty and therefore improved qualification has been sought for under the Policy where a minimum of sixteen years of education is required. The Petitioner has fifteen years of education and does not hold a Masters Degree in Fine Arts hence is not eligible. He further argued that the Petitioner has no vested right, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable.
5. Basic challenge before the Court is to the recruitment Policy. The Petitioner claims that he is qualified for the post of SESE (DM) (BS-14) under the previous recruitment policy, however, as per new recruitment policy since he does not have a Masters Degree in Fine Arts he is no longer qualified for the post. The Petitioner essentially claims that he has a fundamental right for the post of SESE (DM) (BS-14), therefore the Respondents are obligated to accept the educational qualification of the Petitioner. The Policy sets the qualification requirement for the post of SESE (DM), which the Petitioner does not have. Determining the qualification for SESE (DM) is the prerogative of the Executive and there is no justifiable reason to interfere. So far as the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner, the same is distinguishable from the present case and not relevant to the issue before the Court. The Petitioner also claims that the change in Policy was not announced and no notice whatsoever for enhancement of the educational qualification was given hence putting him to a disadvantage. In this regard it is noted that posts are published each year by the Respondents for the purposes of recruitment. There is no compulsion on the Respondents to require the same educational qualification each year and therefore, there is no merit in the Petitioner's grievance that at least two years period is required before increasing the qualification. Therefore the Petitioner has no vested right to claim appointment to a post on the basis of his qualification which are not as per the prevailing policy.
6. For the forging reasons, there is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.