The titled petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 26.06.2019, passed by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court in. W rit Petition No. 856 of 2019.
2. The facts forming the background of the captioned petition for leave to appeal as stated are that the petitioner, herein, is 1st Class State Subject and is in possession of the degree of the Master of Business Administration (MBA). The University of AJ&K Advertised various posts of different cadres including 2 posts of Research Associate/Junior Lecturer Management Sciences B-17. Among others, the petitioner, herein, being eligible applied for appointment. It is stated that test and interview was conducted through National Testing Service (NTS), wherein, the petitioner, herein, obtained 61.7 marks, however, she could not be appointed despite availability of 2 additional posts which were advertised subsequently. It is further stated that the petitioner, herein, appeared in the second test conducted by the NTS, wherein., she obtained 68 marks. The case of the petitioner, herein, is that the policy for induction has been violated by the competent authority which postulates that top 5 candidates would be called for interview. It is further stated that for induction against the post of Lecturer Economics 25 candidates were called for interview instead of 5, whereas, in case of the petitioner, herein, the same has not been done which is against the principle of equality before law. The petitioner, herein, challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents by way of writ petition before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court on 23.05.2019. The writ petition was contested by the other side by filing written' statement, wherein, it was stated that only 2 posts of Junior Lecturer Management Sciences B-17 were advertised and the suitable candidates have been appointed. It was further stated that some candidates obtained equal marks, therefore, they all were called for interview. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2019 has dismissed the writ petition.
3. Mr. Fayyaz Ahmed Janjua, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the University Authorities have violated their own policy and interviewed the candidates on the basis of pick and choose. He further argued that it was a clear cut condition of the induction policy that only 5 candidates who will obtain merit position in overall merit will be called for interview. He submitted that this policy has not been acted upon by the University authorities, so far as, appointment in the department of Business Administration is concerned, whereas, for induction in the Economics Department, more than 25 candidates were called for interview. He further submitted that in this way the petitioner, herein, has been discriminated and the rule of equality before law and equal treatment of law has been denied to the petitioner.
4. Raja Amjid Ali Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner, herein, appeared in the second test, therefore, she is debarred from claiming any right on the basis of previous NTS test. The learned Advocate further submitted that sufficient explanation was given in the written statement before the High Court for calling 25 candidates for interview for induction in the Economics Department because most of the candidates have obtained equal marks in the written test and their overall performance is also same. He further submitted that neither any right of equality before law nor any condition of the policy for induction issued by the University has been violated.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record made available. So far as, the case of the petitioner is concerned that 2 pots advertised subsequently were also available at the time of previous advertisement, is concerned, that has no substance in it. The advertisement appended with the petition do not disclose any date. The petitioner, herein, herself did not mention any date between 2 advertisements, therefore, it cannot be said in vacuum that subsequently advertised 2 posts were available at the time of previous advertisement and were withheld by the University Authorities. Even otherwise, I am of the view that after appearing in the second test, no right can be claimed by the petitioner, herein, on the basis of previous test conducted by the NTS as by competing in the second test she has herself waived her right accrued to her on the basis of previous test as has been held in the case reported as Dr. Habib ur Rehman yrs. The West Pakistan.
Public Service Commission, Lahore and 4 others [1973 PLD SC 144]. The contention of Mr. Fayyaz Ahmed Janjua, Advocate, that the petitioner, herein, has been discriminated, is also devoid of any force. A reasonable explanation has been given by the respondents for calling more than 5 candidates for appointment of Lecturer in the Economics Department.. In presence of this explanation, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents was violative of the recruitment/induction policy issued by the University or any discrimination has been committed by them. The candidates who have obtained equal marks could not be refused to participate in the interview. It is admitted position that the petitioner, herein, is not mentioned in the first five candidates called for interview against the post of Junior. Lecturer Business Administration B-17, therefore, has rightly not been interviewed. The impugned judgment is in line with the record and does not suffer from any legal infirmity . No any legal question of public importance is involved in the case, therefore, leave cannot be granted in routine.
In view of the above, finding no force in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.