SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH J. Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- For the aforesaid reasons, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ by directing the respondents specially respondent No. 4 to act in accordance with law, rules and terms and conditions of the advertisement and to appoint the petitioners, who are otherwise on merits. Any other relief deemed appropriate in the circumstances may also be granted.
2. The brief facts of the case out of which the instant petition arise are that by means of an advertisement in the newspaper the respondents invited application for appointment against the different posts including the post of Junior Clerk (BPS-1 1), on the terms and conditions mentioned therein which were to be filled against the vacant vacancies. In pursuance thereof, petitioners applied for the same and qualified the written test but could not find their names in appointment orders despite the fact that private respondents were below in merit, hence, the instant petition.
3. On direction of the Court, the official respondents submitted their para-wise comments, wherein they contended that the petitioners failed in typing speed test and the appointment of private respondents were made as per policy in vogue.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Primary and critically important question involved in the petition is that the basic requirement for the post of Junior Clerk was Secondary School Certificate or equivalent with 25 words per minute typing speed. Besides, there are 200 marks in total, wherein 100 marks were for educational qualification and 100 marks for NTS and the typing test was also the responsibilities of NTS. The analysis of the recruitment test conducted by the NTS (Merit List) placed on file by the respondents reveals that though the petitioners were having qualified in total marks out of 200 but they failed in typing test which is basic and pre-condition for the post of Junior Clerk (BPS-1 1). As far as typing speed test is concerned, in the advertisement, the respondents laid down a criteria for filling in the post of Junior Clerk as under:- At lease 2nd Division in Secondary School Certificate or equivalent qualifications from a recognized Board and a speed of twenty five words per minute in typing.
Keeping in view the requirement of the advertisement, without conducting typing speed test, the capability of the candidate cannot be adjudged, therefore, the NTS has rightly conducted typing speed test.
6. It is an admitted position that although the petitioners had qualified the written test having marks 131.3, 139.74, 132.29 and 130.62 respectively but they had failed in typing test which was a pre-condition before they could be appointed as Junior Clerk (BSP-1 1). It may not be out of place to mention here that written test is designed essentially to gauge a candidate' s familia rity with the subjects which he has well proficient for this purpose plus his power of expression etc. Thus, the written test does not gauge the personality of the candidate or his communication skill which are left to be examined at the time of interview . Essentially , 25 words per minute is a very basic test, as such, petitioners were not recommended for appointment as they obtained less marks in typing test as required by criteria. It is not possible for a Court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of the Interview Committee in order to give the petitioners relief. In view of the foregoing observations, we cannot agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have malafidely failed them in interview as this Court can neither enter upon the domain of the interviewing authorities nor can question the typing test conducted by the NTS. The apex Court in its judgments reported in 2014 SCMR 157 and 2015 SCMR 1 12, held that: "High Court could not substitute its own opinion with that of interview board".
Similarly , in the case reported in 2000 SCMR 966 , the apex Court held that:- "Candidate having passed the written test but failed in interview to secure qualifying marks were rightly declined appointments.
7. In such circumstances, the petitioners could not establish any malice on the part of the respondents. There is also no measuring apparatus with this Court to determine that the petitioners were deferred in the interview by the respondents only for the sole reason of his failure in typing speed test. Since the petitioners could not fulfill the requisite criteria for the post of Junior Clerk, therefore, they were not recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee, thus, no illegality has been committed by the respondents while acting on the recommendation of the Selection Committee warranting interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
8. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.