SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.----Through the instant constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has made prayer as follows:- "Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that Clause 8 and Clause 9 of Recruitment Policy , 2010 of Rescue 1122 with respect to Interviews, may kindly be declared illegal, void, unlawful and against the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner .
It is further prayed that Test Result dated 29.09.2016 issued by Respondent with respect to interview and marking may kindly be set aside and be declared illegal.
It is further prayed that order dated 28-2- 2017 be set aside and Respondents be directed to declare the petitioner as successful candidate for the post of Rescue and Safety Officer/RSO BPS 16 at Narang Mandl as advertised.
It is further prayed that post of Rescue and Safety Officer/RSO BPS 16 at Narang Mandi as advertised awarded to respondents Nos.6 and 7, may kindly be held in abeyance till the final disposal of the instant writ petition.
Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate may also be granted".
2. At the very outset, while opening his arguments, learned counsel for the petiti oner submits that infact he has challenged the wires of Recruitment Policy duly prescribed by Department Rescue-1 122 for induction of their, workers. While elaborating his arguments, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is presently performing duties as Computer Telephone Wireless Operator (BPS-1 1) in Rescue-1 122. In response to an advertisement duly published in the print media, he applied for the post of Rescue and Safety Officer (RSO) BPS-16 as he was seized with the requisite qualification. It is argued that first limb of the induction in the Department was completed and the petitioner was declared as a successful candidate in written test, however in the interview , he could not meet the criterion laid down by the Department and as such he was declared unsuccessful. Learned counsel adds that as far as the policy of 50% marks in the written examination and the rest in the interview is concerned, the same is not in consonance and the policy formulated by the respective department qua availabil ity of certain characteristics in a person for declaring him a fit candidate for the post are unreasonable and those do not substantiate the basic principles to be qualified for the said post. It is argued that a person, who is having requisite qualification and is 'declared successful in the written test, cannot be deprived for being inducted only on the ground that during interview he was not fully found fit to meet the requisite criterion for the said post. In such backdrop, learned counsel has sought declaration from this Court qua the formulation of the policy otherwise depicted by the Department Rescue-1 122.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.6 has opposed the petition in hand with vehemence mainly on the ground that as per recruitment policy which was part of the advertisement, interview is a sine-qua and the same cannot be brushed aside as it has been made clear that the eligibility of a candidate would comprise 50% marks in written examination and the rest in the interview . It is argued that a number of constitutional petitions on the similar issue/ question have already been dismissed by different Benches of this Court and I.C.A. No.195/2017 preferred in this regard has also met the same fate. In such circumstances, it is contended that the petition in hand is also liable to be dismissed.
4. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard and record available on file perused.
5. The first limb of the arguments advan ced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already performing duties as Computer Telephone Wireless Operator (BPS-1 1) in Rescue 1122, therefore, he had preferential right to be inducted in the Department as Rescue and Safety Officer (RSO) BPS-16, as he was having requisite qualification has no force. Earlier the petitioner was inducted in the Department in BPS-1 1 after fulfilling all the pre-requisites and in the instant case, the open merit policy was publicized through print media and as such there were equal opportunities for all the candidates to be evaluated. It was neither mentioned in the advertisement nor in any other aspect which supports the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner for giving him preference over others.
6. So far as the second limb of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the criterion in the policy regarding the interview also relates to certain other aspects of the personality trade which includes appearance, communication skill, physique, clarity of speech, manners and other allied characteristics which are essential for a person to be inducted in such a Department which exclusively relate s to services of emergency . The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to ignoring the interview does not sound sense. The recruitment policy especially with reference to division of marks for extra curriculum activities as well as description of interview marks is exclusively within the domain of the department. There is no second cavil to this proposition that the executive actions are subject to judicial review , which come within the domain of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, but there is no second thought that in all eventualities the A Courts are under obligation not to interfere into the affairs of any department until and unless the action of the executive is primarily based upon mala fides or that encroaches upon the fundamental rights which are guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case s of "Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others " (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 167) and "Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v . Messrs T ravels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 1) .
7. As far as Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Recruitment Policy/Recruitment Process of Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue-1 122) are concerned, bare reading of the same clearly reflect that the same lend support to its fair-play when all those clauses are read conjointly and evaluated in broader spectrum. It would be advantageous to go through the said clauses, which read as follows:-- "7. Division of five marks for Extracurricular Activities in the existing Selection Criteria : One mark each for swimming and driving and one mark for each emergency/rescue course up to maximum of three marks.
8. Description of Interview Marks : Each member shall give one mark for each one of these characteristics up to maximum of four or five marks as allocated to the Member of the Selection/Recruitment Committee. These characteristics shall include Appearance, Communication Skills, Physique, Clarity of Speech and Manners.
9. Interview Qualifying Marks : The candidates based on the above description of interview marks shall have to secure at least fifty percent marks in the interview to be considered for Selection on merit."
It is sensitized that the policy framed for induction by the department, which as already stated relates to emergency affairs, requires quickness and immediate response having direct nexus with the qualifications being part of the recruitment policy , shall be adjudged during interview . This aspect has been challenged various times before the Courts of law in the jurisdiction under Articles 199 and 184(3) of the Constitution. It has been consistent response of the superior Courts while exercising powers under the relevant provisions of law that ordinarily the Courts do not indulge into to evaluate or scrutinize the actions of the executive on judicial parlance until and unless those are tainted with mala fides or intrudes fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The contention of learne d Additional Advocate General that constitutional petitions bearing Writ Petition No.3281 1/2016 titled "Zeeshan Manzoor v. Punjab Emergency Service and others" Writ Petition No.15627/2016 titled "Muhammad Ilyas v. Government of Punjab and others as well as Writ Petition No.6893/2017 titled "Muhammad Zafar lqbal and others v. Director General, Punjab Emergency Services (Rescue 1122) Punjab, Lahore and others" on the similar subject/issue have alread y been dismissed by different Benches of this Court. Even Intra Court Appeal bearing I.C.A. No.195 of 2017/BWP preferred in this regard has also been dismissed, which may be an additional ground/for dismissal of the petition in hand.
7. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and the law on the subject, this petition has no merits, which stands dismissed.