MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J. Petitioner has filed the instant constitutional petition, under Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, with the following prayer; "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition:
(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to declare the impugned order of appointment of respondent No. 6 dated 23.07.2018 be illegal, void ab-initio, without jurisdiction, mala-fide in excess of jurisdiction, result of ultra-vires, based on demerits, discrimination, favoritism, partiality and of no legal effect.
(b) That the respondent No. 4 be directed to revise their order of appointment and to recruit the petitioner on the said post of LWH as per merit.
(c) Any other relief which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances may also be very kindly granted."
2. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that she belongs to District Dir Lower and it was on 14.11.2017 when respondent No. 5 made an advertisement inviting applications to fill-up various posts of Lady Health Worker ("LHW") across the province including 110 posts in District Dir Lower including in D Cat hospital Talash as well and the petitioner considering herself eligible in terms of qualification applied for the same and thereafter the petitioner was subjected to written test as well as interview and after accumulation of her marks she succeeded to obtain 24 marks, however, instead of the petitioner respondent No. 6 namely Mst. Ghazala Abbas has been appointed by respondent No. 4 on the basis of political pressure and influence vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2018, which order has now been challenged by the petitioner before this Court through the instant petition.
3. When this case was taken up for hearing on 18.03.2019 respondents were put to notice and they were directed to file their para-wise comments which they have accordingly submitted whereby their stance is that since the petitioner could not earn a merit position, therefore, she was not appointed and as against the petitioner respondent No. 6 was higher on merit and as such she was appointed.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Astt: A.G for the official respondents were heard in considerable detail and the record perused with their able assistance.
The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondents have mala- fidely awarded zero marks to the petitioner in the interview and his second objection was that the respondent No.6 is not residing in the catchment area but even then she was appointed, whereas the learned Astt: A.G seriously opposed the objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. As far as first objection of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to grant of zero marks in the interview to the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say, that it is the exclusively domain of the interview panel to judge a candidate and grant marks as per their assessment and this Court in a constitutional jurisdiction cannot substitute its opinion for that of the interview penal. It may be noted that this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the interview panel as the marks awarded during the course of interview is based on a subjective criteria and a Court of law can only interfere, if the marks is to be awarded on the basis of objective criteria. It is settled law that whenever an assessm ent of a candidate for a desire post is to be assessed by an interviewing panel on the basis of academic knowledge, attitude, aptitude, general behavior and personal information conveyed to the interview panel, then in such cases the High Court could not substitute its opinion for that of the opinion of interview panel as such assessment is an exercise which is made on the basis of a subjective criteria i.e. human judgment or perception rather these assessm ents are not made on the basis of an objective criteria i.e. which are evaluated and scored based, or which could be worked out and understand which could be checked or analyzed by this Court through a judicial review. In the case of Asif Hassan and others vs. Sabir Hussain and others reported as 2019 SCMR 1720, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the respondent as it would appear from the short listed candidates that he was more qualified and had a very long experience and, therefore, the official respondents ought to have given preference to respondent No. 1 upon the petitioners. However, we note that the respondent's objection could neither be examined by this Court nor could have been done so by the High Court for the simple reason that the Court cannot take upon itself the function of the appointing authority in order to judge the suitability of a candidate. Similarly, in the case of Arshad Ali Tabassum vs. The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore reported as 2015 SCMR 112, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot substitute its opinion for that which was rendered by an interview/assessm ent committee. It was also held that as far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not recommended for appointment by the committee due to the malice on the part of the members of the Interview Committee for the reason that his services were terminated as Civil Judge on the charge of misconduct, is concerned, suffice it to observe that according to the established principle of law this Court cannot substitute opinion of the Interview Committee on the bald allegation after losing the chance in the interview. Similar observations were also recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sangri vs. Federation of Pakistan and others reported as 2014 SCMR 157, that it is an admitted position that although the petitioner had cleared the written examination but he had failed in the interview/vivavoce which was a pre- condition before he could be appointed as a member of the Central Superior Service of Pakistan. It would be seen that the written test is designed essentially to gauge a candidate's familiarity with the subjects which he has chosen to offer for this purpose plus his power of expression etc. Hence the written test does not gauge the personality of the candidate or his communication skills or his leadership or decision making abilities which are left to be examined at the time of interview. The Central Superior Service of Pakistan is not merely any type of service but should only admit such persons in its fold who have a well-rounded personality, a grasp over national and international affairs, balanced sense of judgment, maturity and stability, good communication skills and leadership as well as decision making abilities. This is for the simple reason that very important matters of the State and the country are entrusted to the members of the Central Superior Service and if persons of low intellectual quality or feeble personalities enter the same, the entire country suffers. When the petitioner sat for the SSC Examination he knew very well that not only did he have to pass the written test (which he did) but also the interview in which he failed. 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. In view of the above, the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to grant of zero marks to the petitioner in interview is misconceived.
6. As far as the second objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that the petitioner belongs to the said areas whereas the respondent is not residing in the catchment area, however, the better comments filed by the respondents would show that the appointing authority before issuance of the impugned appointment order have carried out an extensive exercise whereby the residential /catchment areas of the candidates has been verified where the name of respondent No. 6 find mentioned at serial No. 2 which shows that she is residing in the same catchment area and as such her abode has been confirmed before the issuance of the impugned appointment order, therefore, the second objection of the petitioner too, is not holding any weight.
7. In view of the above discussion and exposition of law, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for issuance of the desired writ, therefore, the instant petition being bereft of any merits is hereby dismissed, in limine