SYED ARSHAD ALI, J.- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition. i. The respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner in GPS Nasrat being meritorious than respondent No.4. ii. It is further prayed that the responden ts be directed to cancel the appointment order dated 12.01.2019 to the extent of respondent No.4 and issue appointment order of the petitioner in the said School. iii. That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances may also be very kindly granted."
2. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.11.2017 issued by the respondents in daily `Mashriq' soliciting the applications from the eligible candidates for the post of PST (BPS-12) in Union Council Nasrat Shahikot, the present petitioner had applied for the said post. He appeared in the NTS test and obtained 84.662 marks. He also appeared in the interview on 27.09.2018, however , despite being higher on merit, he was not considered for appointment for the reason that on cut off date for receiving application, he did not possess the required qualification.
3. On being noticed, the respondent No.3 i.e. District Education Officer (M), Dir Upper, has filed his comments, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was dropped from merit list as the Bachelor Degree possessed by him was obtained after cut-off date i.e 20.12.2017.
4. Arguments heard and record of the case was perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.G for the of ficial respondents.
5. It is evident from the record that through an advertisement dated 21.11.2017, published in daily `Mashrig', applications were invited from eligible candidates for filling different posts in the education department. The present petitioner had applied for the post of PST (BPS-12). The required qualification for the said post was that the candidate must possess Bachelor Degree. The cut-off date for providing applications by the eligible candidates was 20.12.2017. The petitioner appeared in the written test and obtained 84.662 marks. However, at the time of interview, his candidature was not considered for the reason that on cut-off date i.e. 20.12.2017, he did not possess the Bachelor Degree, which was essential qualification for the post in question.
In this regard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the present petitioner had appeared in the examination of B.A Part-II (Bachelor Degree), on 27th June to 8th August, 2018, and his result was declared on 11th September, 2018, whereas the interview for the post was conducted on 27.09.2018, thus, on the date of the interview, he was eligible to hold the post. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the cases of 'Muhammad Nazir Ahmad Vs. Muhammad Aslam and others'
(2013 SCMR 363) & Nusrat Rafi Vs. Executive District Officer (Education), Faisalabad and others' (2010 PLC (C.S) 257 , Lahore) .
In Mst. Nusrat Rafi's case, the essential qualification for the post was MSc (Computer Science). The date fixed in the advertisement for receiving the application was 14.5.2009 and result of the petitioner in that case was declared on 15.5.2009, however, the official result card was issued to the petitioner on 27.06.2009, whereas his interview was conducted on 28.6.2009. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court has held that the petitioner had complied with the requirements of advertisement by filing application alongwith educational testimonials including a certificate issued by the University certifying that he had completed his MSc (Computer Science) on 05.05.2009 and had obtained 3.43 Cumulative Grade Point. Thus, the petitioner had acquired the essential qualification i.e. MSc (Computer Science) on 05.05.2009, before the date of filing application and was therefore held eligible for the post as she did possess the required qualification on the cut off date for receiving application for the post.
In Muhammad Nazir Ahmad's case, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has not provided a rule of thumb about the eligibility of a person on the date of interview for a particular post. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said judgment has held that: "Candidate for a post not qualifying for the same on the cut-off date set-out for applying to the post, but attaining the threshold of eligibility before passing of final order of appointment---question as to whether such candidate should be considered for the post on merits by the appointing authority---No universal or general rule could be laid down for such a candidate, and it all depended upon the nature of office/slot, the relevant rules under which the appointment was to be made, and the requirement/condition mentioned in the invitation/ application/advertisement, requiring the persons to apply for the slot."
Similarly , in the case of Jehanzeb Malik vs Baluchistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority' (2018 SCMR 414 ), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has reaf firmed this view by holding that: "There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was at the top of the list on the basis of his performance in the test and interview. Further, he was selected on the basis of his MBA degree. The documents examined by us also indicate that the petitioner has competed his degree in January, 2014 with an Cumulative Grade Point Average ("GPA") of 3.19. However, the degree was formally issued on 7th of March, 2015 for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The degree itself shows that the petitioner had successfully completed the requisite course work and examination in the academic year 2014. The transcript issued by the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi also verifies the fact that the petitioner had completed his degree in January , 2014. That being the case, Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 were justified in considering the petitioner as duly qualified on the basis of his MBA degree from IBA."
6. Thus, the legal position is clear that if on the cut-off date for receiving the application, the petitioner does qualify the essential condition, however, due to an official act or omission, he could not formally receive the certificate or degree of the essential qualification, then his candidature cannot be regretted on the said score.
However, if by the cut-off date for receiving the application for a particular post, the candidate has not passed the essential qualification, then he is not eligible to apply for the said post.
In the context of the present case, the present petitioner had acquired the essential qualification on 11.09.2018 and has appeared in the Bachelor Degree (B.A Part-II) examination on 27th June to 8th August, 2018, whereas the cut-off date in the advertisement for receiving the application was 20.12.2017, thus, he has acquired the essential qualification after about 7/8 months of the cut-off date, hence, he was not eligible for the post.
8. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.