MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI , J.----Through instant appeal, appellant has assailed vires of order dated 09.09.2015, passed by learned Federal Public Service Commission, whereby appellant's review petition, against rejection of his representation, was dismissed.
2. Appellant in person, with permission of the Court, submits that one of the mem bers of interview panel was not present when appellant's interview was conducted and this change in composition of interview 'panel is absolutely illegal rendering the whole interview process unsustainable. When confronted, learned Law Officer has cited Regulations i.e. Section Officers Promotional Exam-2012 to contend that no illegality has been committed by respondents.
3. Perusal of record shows that appellant's interview was conducted on 13.09. 2013 and he did not raise any objection qua composition of interview panel. However , after result wherein he secured low marks, he raised this objection by filing representation on 29.01.2015, after more than one year and 04-months. The matter relates to the year 2015 and the posts have already been filled, wherein appellant could not qualify, thus, the matter has become a past and closed transaction. Even otherwise, interview was a subjective test and it is not possible for a Court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of Viva Voce Board/Interview Committee, rather it was within the domain of its Members that what persuaded them to award certain marks to a particular candidate and the Court of law is not expected to substitute their findings with its own findings. Reference can be made to Arshad Ali Tabassum v. The Registrar , Lahore High Court, Lahore (2015 SCMR 112), Miss Gulnaz Baloch v. Registrar , Balochistan High Court, Quetta and others [2015 PLC (C.S.) 393], Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others ( 2014 SCMR 157 ) and Dr. Mir Alam Jan Muhammad Shahzad and others ( 2008 SCMR 960 ).
4. In view of the above, instant appeal, being devoid of any force, is dismissed . No order as to costs.