1. AZHAR SALEEM BABAR, J.---Arguments heard. The University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir advertised some posts of Lecturer along with one post in discipline of Mathematics. The advertisement required the candidates to have qualification of Masters Degree (Foreign) or M.
2. Phil/MS (Pakistan) or equivalent degree (18 years) in the relevant field from HEC recognized University Institution with no 3rd division in the academic career. The petitioner and Qurat-ul-Ain, the respondent applied for the job and the Selection Board recommended the respondent for appointment as Lecturer in Mathematics. The petitioner has challenged the order of appointment of the respondent by contending that the respondent has been awarded 5 marks for her distinction without legal justification. It has been argued for the petitioner that the respondent does not have distinction of Gold Medal in her M. Phil degree, so, she could not be awarded 5 extra marks. It has been explained that if extra marks given to the respondent are excluded, the petitioner would gain merit for appointment as lecturer.
3. On the other hand The University of AJ&K as well as private respondent is of the view that the respondent was awarded Gold Medal in her M. Sc, so, the Selection Board has rightly added 5 numbersfor her distinction as is provided in the Assessment Proforma.
4. Question for resolution by the Court is that whether Qurat-ulAin, the respondent was entitled to 5 extra/additional marks for her distinction in M.Sc? It may be stated here that the respondent claims that a Gold Medal awarded to a candidate at any stage of academic qualification entitles him/her to 5 additional marks for appointment as Lecturer. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner is of the view that Assessment Proforma approved by the University prescribes that 5 marks shall be awarded to a catdidate for her/his distinction "for required degree/certificate". It has been stressed that required degree for appointment as a lecturer is M. Phil Degree in the case of respondent. As the respondent does not hold distinction in her M. Phil examination so, she is not entitled to be awarded 5 extra marks on the basis of her distinction in M. Sc degree. It is pertinent to bring on record that University of AJ&K Muzaffarabad has issued a notification on 07.08.2017, whereby words "for required degree/certificate" have been deleted from Assessment Proforma.
5. Facsimile of notification is reproduced here under for proper appreciation: "No, Meetings/44th Sy (1-26)/2858/2017. The Syndicate in its 44th meeting held on 24.05.2017, approved that five marks of Gold Medal shall be awarded to each candidate having Gold Medal in any degree of his/her academic career and the words "for required degree/certificate" from assessment proformae notified vide No, Meetings/43rd Syli-21(Part-11)/760-61/2017 dated 02.02.2017, be deleted since inception."
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has' also been emphasized that University management has admitted by issuing the afore-stated notification that criteria for awarding 5 additional marks for appointment as lecturer was distinction/Gold Medal in the relevant degree. It has been contended that the private respondent was not holding distinction in the required degree of M. Phil. so, she could not be benefited with 5 extra marks. It has also been stressed that notification dated 07.08.2017 has been issued with mala fide intention just to benefit the private respondent. Learned counsel" is of the view that notification dated 07.08.2017 has no effect on rights of the petitioner because legislation cannot be given retrospective effect. He has relied on 2003 SCR 351, wherein the same like proposition has been resolved in the following words:- "It follows that the disputed notification which is shown to have been read retrospectively could not be taken into consideration for the above reasons as the process of selection in respect of receiving applications according to qualifications determined for it had already completed.
7. Therefore, it could not be read retrospectively for having not been so provided by law-givers."
8. Learned counsel has further relied on 2014 SCR 1 and 2006 SCR 396 by explaining that a right accrued to a candidate cannot be snatched by subsequent amendment in qualification.
9. A perusal of attached record reveals that Selection Board sought decision of syndicate in the matter of awarding 5 marks of Gold Medal to Qurat-ul-Ain (respondent). The Selection Board forwarded the matter to the syndicate in the following words:- "The candidate at Sr.No,2 Ms. Qurat-ul-Ain, has Gold Medal in MSC. After inclusion of 5 ,marks of Gold Medal, she stands 1st in merit. In light of approved Proforma, the candidate may be awarded 05 marks of Gold Medal for required degree/ certificate (copy enclosed). In case, 05 marks are not awarded to Ms. Qurat-ul-Ain for Gold Medal, she will be at 2nd position and the candidate at Sr.
10. No,4 (Qazi Zain-ul-Abadin) will occupy Pie 1st position."
11. It appears that assessm ent proforma has been proposed by Selection Board on 17.07.2001. The syndicate of University of AJK held its meeting on 20.08.2001 and discussed the prescribed assessm ent proforma. The syndicate decided that proforma for recruitment to BS-17, seems to be appropriate and the Selection Board was authorized to decide its own policy in the circumstances of each case. So, validity of assessment proforma relied upon by the parties is not disputed.
12. Prescribed proforma attached with the memorandum of writ petition provides 5 marks for distinction in column 19. It has been clarified at foot of the assessment proforma that 5 marks of distinction shall be awarded "for required degree/certificate". The respondent is admittedly a Gold Medal in her M.Sc Mathematics but has no such distinction in her M. Phil degree. The words "for required degree/certificate", obviously indicate to the qualification required for appointment which is M. Phil in case of private respondent. It can therefore, be concluded without fear of contradiction that Qurat-ul-Ain, the respondent was not entitled to 5 extra marks for her distinction of "Gold Medal" because she do not have distinction in required degree of M. Phil. The matter is further clarified from issuance of notification dated 07.08.2018. whereby University of AJK deleted the words "for required degree/certificate" from assessment proforma therefore, it has been admitted by the University in the presence of the words "for required degree/certificate", the respondent could not be given benefit of 5 additional marks. The notification shows that the afore-stated condition has been deleted from the date of inception. Such an effort looks to be advertent effort to benefit the private respondent. It is regretted that university of AJK has issued such person-specific notification indicating mala fide on its part. It has also been concluded that matter of the petitioner has to be dealt in accordance with law prevailing at the time of advertising the post in question. So, subsequent withdrawal of any condition cannot snatch a right accrued to the candidate. It is, therefore, held that notification dated 07.08.2018 is ineffective on rights of the petitioner. An extract from recommendations of Selection Board seeking decision on syndicate regarding dispute between the parties, has already been reproduced in earlier part of this judgment. The Selection Board has clarified that if Qurat-ul-Ain, respondent is not awarded 5 marks for her distinction/Gold Medal, Qazi Zain-ul-Abadin will occupy the 1st position. It has already been concluded that the private respondent was not entitled to 5 extra marks for her distinction. So, the petitioner, falls atop of the merit list for the post or Lecturer BS-18.
13. So University management is directed to act in accordance with recommendations of Selection Board by deleting 5 marks of distinction/Gold Medal awarded to the private respondent. The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.