MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J. The petitioner applied for the posts advertised by FPSC on 9th April, 2017 and appeared in the written examination 2017 held by FPSC under roll No. 00362. The result of the said examination was announced on 05-01-2018, which reflects that 213 candidates have qualified the written test. The petitioner scored 505/800 in written test, while 190/300 in viva and thus he scored total 695/1200 marks.
2. The total marks obtained be respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are under:- Marks WrittenViva Total a.Shaista Shehbaze484 200 684 b.AmmaraTabassum462 210 672 c. Arifa 455 185 640 Strangely, while preparing the final merit the respondent No. 3 (FPSC) selected respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7, who were below than the merit of the petitioner . The respondent No. 3 appointed two candidates namely Mehboob Ullah and Sadat Ali Changezi, who scored 696 marks, as evident from serial No. 27 and serial No. 28 of merit list and then by a long jumping they, showered their blessing to the candidate s of serial Nos. 39, 48 and 73 of the merit list.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved from the recommendation/allocation of FPSC and his non-selection has filed the instant writ petition, wherein multiple questions of law and facts have been raised. The main contention of the petitioner is that a discriminatory treatment has been meted out to him by the FPSC.
5. The instant writ petition was filed before this Court on 15-10-2018, wherein pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent and the writ was posted to 22-10-2018. On the said date the writ was admitted for regular hearing and responders were directed to file parawise comments and office was directed to fix the case before the Court after receipt of comments from the respondents.
6. An interesting development took place during pendency of instant petition, when the respondent (FPSC) re- allocated some seats and the petitioner was allocated the post of Development Officer (DO 3 of 6) vide FPSC letter No. F-9/10/2016/CCE(GB) P&PE dated 20-11-2018. The petitioner filed C.Misc No. 431/2018 before this Court praying that he was deserving for the post of Tehsildar (BPS-16) and he has been allocated the seat of Development Officer (BPS-16), which is again against the merit list issued by FPSC. On 10-12-2018 following orders were passed by a Division Bench of this Court.
2. Writ petition of the petitioner bearing No.189/2018 is pending adjudication before this Court. The instant C.M.
No.431/2018 has been filed by the petitioner , whereby it is asserted that the respondent No.3 who has offered the post of Development Officer to the petitioner , who was deserving for a better post of Tehsildar (BS-16) as the post of Development Officer and T ehsildar are of the same pay scale.
3. The respondents are directed to maintain status-quo till disposal of the above writ petition.
4. Respondents are further directed to file parawise comments in the main writ petition for early disposal of the same after winter vacation.Case to come up on 20-12-2018.
5. A copy of this order sheet be faxed to the office of respondents Nos.3 and 4 and fax transmission be made a part of judicial record.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and record of the case and parawise comments submitted by the respondents also perused in the light of pro and contra stance. Arguments pro and contra are not being re-produced as the same will surely raise the volume of the judgment.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the female candidates, who were selected on merit list according to their own quota were selected on initial merit. The petitioner was at serial No. 29 of the merit list and total 33 candidates were required to be selected, therefore, it was right of the petitioner to be selected on the initial merit list and not on any subsequent list. Women quota is mentioned only against 05 female candidates and the contention of the respondent No. 03 FPSC that females were selected against the post of Development Officers on women quota is not correct and against the essence of the advertisement mentioned supra. The candidates who were at serial Nos. 21 and 23 did not join the service. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. No.431/2018 and the respondents were directed to maintain status-quo vide order dated 10-12-2018. The same is vacated and the Services Department is directed to proceed with the cases of all the selected candidates of initial as well as of subsequent merit list, as we have kept both the lists intact. The Services Department is further directed to process the case of petitioner at their end also for compliance of order of this Court.
9. The petitioner is serving as Naib Tehsildar since 2017 and has gained sufficient experience of administration in the own filed. His induction as a Tehsildar would be in the interest of State.
10. In view of above discussion, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Tehsildar BPS-(16) instead of Development Officer (BPS-16) against a vacant post of Tehsildar and if no post of Tehsildar is available at present then the petitioner may be appointed as Tehsildar (BPS-16) against the minority quota as a special case which is admittedly lying vacant.
11. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 86(2) of Self-Empowerment and Governance Order, 2018, can take notice of the subsequent happenings and can mould the relief according to the ground realities, even if the same has not been claimed. The petitioner filed the writ under different circumstances, but when the instant writ came before us for adjudication, some substantial changes, we noticed and it was our moral and legal obligation to do complete justice with the petitioner in the given circumstances. The Court as discussed supra can take the notice of any subsequent event as held in 2005 MLD 71, the relevant citation is as under:-- "(b) Constitution of Pakistan, (1973)---- -Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court had ample jurisdiction to look into subsequent events at the time of deciding cases. [p. 73] B"
Likewise, the same principles were reiterated in the judgment reported in 2005 YLR 327 which citation though same but re-produced just for the purpose of convenience.
"(a) Constitution of Pakistan, (1973)---- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---High Court has ample jurisdiction to look into subsequent events at the time of deciding cases. [p. 339] A"
12. We have absolutely no cudgels in acknowledging the meticulous services being rendered by making the right selection of capable candidates as civil officer/public servants, yet the system requires if not an overhauling in to at least some practicable amendments to cater for the need of time, it is a loud clamor of the present era that generalized approach towards technical matters should be elbowed and expertise be given its due acknowledgment, institution shouldering the mammoth responsibility of selecting the eligible candidates should also give a thought to the aptitude academic as well as official credentials of a candidate and while allocating him a particular department his field of experience should be the prime consideration allocating a department to a candidate in accord with his mettle and capabilities is likely to yield fruits and will pave the way for a better and prosperous Pakistan, else wise it could have devastating ramification as well.
13. A copy of this judgment be sent to respondents for information/compliance as soon as possible.
14. The instant Writ Petition No. 189/2018 along with C. Miscellaneous Nos. 324/2018 and 431/2018 are disposed off accordingly.