MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANW AR, J. By invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks the following prayer: - "It is, therefore, venerably prayed that on accepting this writ petition: A) Direct the respondent to submit the whole record, that PTS result alongwith NIC number and those whose number are less than petitioner their education documents may also be provided to check the veracity that under what authority of law the respondent issued impugned notification dated 04/10/2019.
B) The impugned appointment order dated 04/10/2019 may please be declared void, illegal, against the rules and regulations thus ineffective upon the right of the petitioner thus liable to be struck down and the petition er is fully entitled for appointment on the post of male warder .
C) Declare the act of respondent, by not giving the benefit of higher qualification, is illegal, against the rules & regulation and further direct the respondents to act in the matter in accordance to law by giving benefits of Higher Qualification to the petitioner as mentioned in the advertisement.
D) To declare that criteria if any not specified in the advertisement, unconstitutional, illegal, void ab initio and thus the same is liable to be struck down.
E) Declare the appointment of respondent No.5-7 or any other person who after the submission of documents found below on the merit list, illegal, void and thus liable to be cancelled and petitioner being fully qualified and higher on merit list is liable to be appointed on the post of Male Warder with all back benefits of service.
F) Any other relief as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case not specifically asked for, may also be granted to the petitioner.
02. In pursuance to the advertisement of respondent No.4, applications were invited for the post of Male Warder (BPS-05), the petitioner being eligible and qualified submitted an application. He went through screening test, conducted by Pakistan Testing Service but despite having requisite qualification , secured more marks than the private respondents, he was not selected by the respondents whereas private respondents No.5 to 7 were selected and appointed. The petitioner alleged the appointment of respondents No.5 to 7 is illegal, against the rules and regulations and ineffective upon his right and has also sought the prayer in term of directing the respondents to appoint him in accordance with law. He also prayed that the criteria for eligibility and selection, though not specified and mentioned in the advertisement but the same was adopted, which is illegal, unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. Respondents No.2 to 4 were directed to furnish their para-wise comments, in compliance whereof, respondents No.3 & 4 have submitted their para-wise comments wherein they have refuted the allegations of the petitioner and contended that the petition er has qualified only screening test by securing 55 marks but while going through from the interview , he was unable to place himself in merit position because the committee has unanimously declared him as failed in interview . The respondents have opposed the issuance of writ as prayed for by the petitioner .
CM No.188-P/2021.
The respondents have submitted the insta nt application / CM for placing on file additional documents, which as per their contention, are necessary for just decision of the instant petition. Perusal of record reveals that alongwith the application, copy of the judgment in WP No.5790-P/2019, Rules as well as criteria for quantification and marks allocated for interview and merit list of Zone-IV were annexed with the instant application / CM. As the documents annexed with the application are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the instant writ petition, therefore, this application / CM is allowed and the documents appended therewith would be treated as part and parcel of this petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed upon the criteria of interview and contended that for the post of Male Warder (BPS-05), no such criteria was mentioned in the advertisement of respondent No.4 and even if the petitioner was not awarded a single mark by the interviewing committee, he was on the top of the merit list of the screening test from Zone-IV , in which, he has secured 133 marks whereas the marks of respondent No.5 were 126, respondent No.6 were 121 and respondent No.7 were 120, as such, they were in low merit position but were select ed against the rules and regulations. Perusal of record reveals that there were total 153 posts for Male Warder and 6 for Female Warder in Zone-IV . The interviewing committee was comprising upon Mr. Khalid Abbas, Super intendent Headquarters Prison, Peshawar as Chairman, Mr. Muhammad Rehman, Deputy Secretary (P&R), Home Department as Member and Mr. Naseer-ud-Din Bangash, Deputy Director (Letg) O/O, I.G Prison as Member , the interviewing committee after examining the record and conducting the interview selected 13 candidates from Zone-IV . The committee after deliberation and discussion has recommended the following steps unanimously , which reads as: - "(a) The candidates will be called through call letter and also for their facilitation, text message will be forwarded on their mobile phones.
(b) It was unanimously decided by the Committee that interviews process may be commenced w.e.f 28.02.2019, Female candidates of zone-4 & 5 may be called for interview on the starting day, while the female candidates of Zone-1, 2 & 3 alongwith minorities will be called on the following day. Thereafter 35 candidates will be called per day (Except Saturday, Sunday or any other gazette holiday), start will be taken from Zone-5 & Zone-1 and so onward.
(c) It was unanimously decided by the said Committee that from Zone-1, two candidates will be called for 01 post, from zone-2, "Zone-3 & Zone-4, there candidates for 01 post while from Zone-5 all the candidates who have declared passed by the PTS will be called subject to securing at least 20 marks in the screening test, while in case of others, i.e. Female & minority quota, all of them will be called for interview .
(d) It was unanimously recommended by the Committee that if a candidate (Male/Female) of any zone failed to appear for interview right on the date fixed will be permitted to appear on any working day during the course of interview .
(e) Issue regarding wrong marking, scorin g by the PTS authority in the lists will be discussed during interview and disposed / corrected in light of documentary proofs.
(f) It was also recommended by the Committee that although PTS authority has carried out their physical measurements, but if a candidate (Male / Female) apparently seems below the required standard, he / she will be re-examined by the Committee through SMO Jail, and if found unsuitable, he / she will not be permitted for interview and shall stand cancelled, his / her candidature will be dropped from the process."
05. No doubt, the petitioner has got requisite qualification and obtained higher marks in screening test but it is equally significant that it was not the only criteria for final selection rather it was only for short listing purpose. The committee has unanimously declared the petitioner as failed and no marks were given.
Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if no mark was given to the petitioner he could have been selected, this argument has no force as the interviewing committee has to adjudge the short listed candidates for the purpose of selection of specific job. As the interview is a subjective test and it is not possible for the Court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of an interview board, as it is in the domain of the members of the committee. The apex Court in case titled "Muhammad Ashraf Sangri vs. Federation of Pakistan and others" ( 2014 SCMR 157 ) has observed: "Essentially an interview is a subjective test and it is not possible for a Court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of the Interview Board in order to give the petitioner relief. What transpired at the interview and what persuaded one member of the Board to award him only 50 marks is something which a Court of law is certainly not equipped to probe and to that extent we cannot substitute our own opinion with that of the Interview Board.
Obviously if any mala fides or bias or for that matter error of judgment were floating on the surface of the record we would have certainly intervened as Courts of law are more familiar with such improprieties rather than dilating into question of fitness of any candidate for a particular post which as observed above is subjective matter and can best be assessed by the functionaries who are entrusted with this responsibility"
06. It has been held in a case titled Dr Mir Alam Jan vs. Dr Muhammad Shahzad and others (2008 SCMR 960) that: "The High Court in constitutional jurisdiction is not expected to perform the functions of a Selection Committee so as to substituting its opinion with that of the competent authority . This Court in a judgment dated 24.01.2019 passed in writ petition No.4847/2016, while deriving guidance from cases as reported 2015 SCMR 112, 2014 SCMR 157 , 2008 SCMR 960 AND 2000 SCMR 966 has observed that: - "Even otherwise, this Court could not substitute opinion of the interview committee on the basis of allegations levelled against the interview process by the unsuccessful candidates, who lost their chance in the interview ."
07. Insofar as the prayer of the petitioner whereby he challenged the criteria of selection, respondents have adopted the mode for the purpose of selection for the post of Male Warder in consonance with the Notification dated 17.06.1989 bearing No. SORI ( S & GAD ) 4-1 / 75 and also relied upon the procedure for selection of initial recruitment as per Rule 7 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rule, 1989 wherein, the criteria for selection for initial recruitment was given under Head (ii), which reads as under: - "For posts in Grade-5 and above in all departments - In addition to the total marks allocated for a written competitive examination, if any held, the total marks will be 100 as per distribution given below:
(a) Prescribed qualification 70
(b) Higher Qualification 12
(c) Experience 10
(d) Interview 08
08. Admittedly, the petitioner was not awarded any marks in interview, as such, he has not been able to be placed in merit list for the purpose of selection. Similarly, the petitioner has also not been able to persuade us in connection with his prayer for striking down the procedure and criteria for selection.
09. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition stands dismissed.