MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.----The petitioner filed the instant writ petition against the respondents, mainly on the grounds that the respondents have ruine d the merit, while making appointments of vaccinators in District Daimer and have appointed their own blue eyed persons. The petitioner has raised many other grounds in the writ petition and also placed certain documents in support of his writ.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner obtained 65% marks in written test while respondent No,6 obtained 56% marks and respondent No,7 obtained 48% marks . The respondents Nos,6 and 7 were selected, while the petitioner was denied the right of appointment which is illegal and unwarranted. The respondents in interview were awarded maximum marks, while petitioner was awarded only 3/30 marks, which could not be justified.
3. On 28-01-2019 respondent No. 3 Director EPI Gilgit-Baltistan was directed to appear in person along with record and case was fixed for 02-02-2019. One Mr. Shakil Ahmed Khan, Director EPI appeared and assisted the Court with the learned Assistant Advocate General.
4. The Director placed whole the record before the Court and submitted that for selection of vaccinators for various UCs of District Diamer , test/interviews were conducted and a committee was constituted, which was consisting of one rep of Finance Department, one from Services Department and the Director EPI was Chairman of the committee.
5. The Director stated that the petitioner was serving in Police Department and he concealed the facts that he was serving as a contingent paid employee in Police Department, rather during interview he also falsely stated that he was not employee in Police Department. The Director stated that some of other candidate supplied documents regarding service of the petitioner in police Department. The respondent No,6 was granted 24/30 marks in interview while respondent No,7 was granted 30/30 marks and the petitioner because of his own conduct was awarded only 3 marks. The appointments have been made keeping in view the merit of the candidate.
6. The learned counsel when confronted with the above factual position could not satisfy the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner was informed that this Court have no formula/device to gauge the performance of a candidate in interview . There may be chance of A manipulation to favour the blue eyed persons in selection process by awarding them maximum marks in interview . So for future it is direc ted that Chief Secretary should formulate a uniform policy for selection/appointment of candidates.
7. Nepotism, favoritism and capriciousness is becoming order of the day. It has been observed multiple times that many a capable and talented, contestants who unfortunately could not pull the string in their favour never get their due and fail to clinch the desire position both in Government as well as in private sector that too without any fault on their part for such a worsening state of affairs, more than often those very jobs which are proceeded by written test and interview prior to final selection get plagued by sinister and sordid motives, one who works wonders in written examination gets thrown out of the competition owing to the marks awarded in the interviewing. Since there exists no gauge to measure the degree of fairness of the one's interviewing and the extent of capabilities of those being interviewed, be that as it may, the grievances pertaining to the marks awarded after interviews is longstanding and clamors of an immediate overhauling it is, therefore, directed to the concerned authorities via this judgment that a practicable change in the selection policies should be ushered whereby the marks of interview should not more than 10 marks in toto, reducing the total to a limit of 10 marks only will obviate the possibility of being unjust to the deserving one's. The directive should be followed and implemented in letter and spirit in future besides after the pronouncement of this judgment the marks of interview will be considered to be a total of 10 for all intents and purpose.
8. With a heavy heart the instant writ petition is dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to Chief Secretary for information/Compliance as directed above.
9. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary for strict compliance. Chief Secretary shall circulate the judgment of this Court to all the heads of departments for their knowledge and compliance in letter and spirit.