MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J.----Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner , Dr. Muhammad Babar Chohan, impugns the notification dated 19.04.2018, issued by the Establishment Division, whereby respondent No,3 (Ms. Nelofar Shahzad) was appointed as Deputy Permanent Delegate at the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO, Paris for a period of three years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the evaluatio n performa annexed at page-46 of this petition, and submitted that in the competitive process for appointment against the said post, the petitioner had secured 68 marks, whereas respondent No,3 had secured only 62 marks; that in the interview , the petitioner was given 09 marks, whereas respondent No,3 .obtained 18.5 marks; that the petitioner's credentials are superior to those of respondent No,3; and that the calculation of the marks made by respondents Nos,1 and 2 are not in accordance with the policy guidelines contained in Establishment Division's of fice memorandum dated 16.02.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although for the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, 80% weightage had been given but 20% weightage for the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview had not been given; that on account of the said failure, the provisions of paragraph-viii of the Establishment Division's office memoran dum dated 16.02.2016 were violated; that since respondent No,3 had completed her Senior Management Course on 15.06.2018, she was clearly in the promotion zone, and therefore, could not have been appointed as Deputy Permanent Delegate; that the Federal Board of Revenue's office memorandum dated 30.12.2016 is erroneous and out dated; and that the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training on 16.12.2016 shows that officers likely to be promoted in the next two years cannot be appointed as Deputy Permanent Delegate at the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,3 submitted that the impugned notification dated 19.04.2018 does not suffer from any legal infirmity; that respondent No,3 was fully qualified and eligible to be appointed as Deputy Permanent Delegate at the Permanent Delegation of Pakis tan to UNESCO; that although respondent No,3 completed her Senior Management Course on 15.06.2018, she was not in the promotion zone, and was not due for consideration for promotion; that the decision to select a suitable person for the said appointment was to be based on the written test as well as the interview; that the cumulative marks obtained by respondent No,3 in the written test and interview were more than those of the petitioner; that 80% weightage had been given to the marks obtained by candidates in the written test, whereas the question of giving 20% weightage for the marks obtained by candidates in the interview did not arise since the total marks for the interview were 20; and that respondent No,3 had already assumed her charge as Deputy Permanent Delegate at the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
5. Learned Assistant Attorney-General submitted that respondent No.3's appointment was made strictly on merit and the same does not suf fer from any legal infirmity .
6. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties as well as the learned Assistant Attorney-General and have perused the record with their able assistance.
7. It is an admitted position that the marks obtained by candidates for appointment against the post of Deputy Permanent Delegate (BS-19), at the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO, was not the sole criteria for appointment against the said post. 80% of weightage had to be given for the marks obtained in the written test, whereas 20% weightage had to be given to the marks obtained in interview . This weightage was as per the requirement contained in paragraph-viii of the Establishment Division's office memorandum dated 16.02.2016. This office memorandum contains the Policy Guidelines for Foreign Appointments and Postings in Pakistan's Missions Abroad and against Pakistan's Seats in International, Multilateral, Bilateral and Regional Organizations, Fora and Bodies.
8. In the case at hand, the petitioner had obtained 68 out of 100 marks in the written test and 9 marks out of 20 in the interview . Since 80% of weightage had to be given for the marks obtained by candidates in the written test, the petitioner's marks for the written test came to 54.40. Since the total marks for the interview were 20, there was no need to give 20% weightage to the marks obtained by candidates in the intervi ew. The petitioner's total marks came to 63.40 which placed the petitioner in 4th position.
9. As regards respondent No,3, she obtained 62 out of 100 marks in the written test and 18.5 marks out of 20 in the inter view. Since 80% of weightage had to be given for the marks obtained by candidates in the written test, respondent No,3's marks for the written test came to 49.60. Respondent No,3's total marks came to 68.10 which placed her in the 1st position. Consequently , vide impugned notification dated 19.04.2018, respondent No,3 was appointed as Deputy Permanent Delegate of Pakistan to UNESCO.
10. It is well settled that mere clearance of a written test does not by itself create any vested right in the petitioner's favour for appointment against the said post when such a test is not the sole criter ion for making the appointment.
For instance, in the case at hand, the criterion for the appointment against the post in question was not just a written test but also an interview . Since the petitioner was at serial No,4 on the merit list, he could not expect to be appointed against the said post. The question whether or not the petitioner's performance was better than that of respondent No,3 in the interview , is a factual controversy , which cannot be resolved in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
11. True, the notification dated 19.04.2 018, whereby respondent No,3 was appointed as Deputy Permanent Delegate at the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO was issued before respondent No,3 completed her Senior Management Course but since respondent No,3 assumed the charge of her new appointment on 17.07.2018 (i.e., after the completion of the said course), this by itself would be no ground to interfere with the appointment.
12. Office memorandum dated 16.12.2016 issued by the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, provided inter-alia that officers who are likely to be promoted in the next two years may not be nominated for appointment as Deputy Permanent Delegate at the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO. I have no reason to doubt the correctness and veracity of office memorandum dated 30.12.2016, issued by the Revenue Division confirming that respondent No,3 did not fall in the promotion zone in the next two years. Respondent No,3's charge assumption report dated 17.07.2018 shows that she is still a BS-19 of ficer.
13. By reason of the above, I find no merit in the instant petition F which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.