1. Through the above tiled writ petitions filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, the petitioners seek a direction against the respondents/PSC to conduct interview and to allow them to participate in the interview for the post of Protocol Officer BS-17 on the basis of marks which they obtained in MCQs test by issuing call letters to the petitioners and by cancelling the press release/handout dated 01.01.2021 as well as to issue the new handout/press release.
2. Precise facts forming background of the instant writ petitions are that the petitioners are 1st class State Subject of Azad Jammu & Kashmir hailing from different Districts of AJ&K. Vide advertisement No. 04/2018, the Public Service Commission of AJ&K invited applications for appointment against the post of Protocol Officer BS-17 on open merit except the unit of refugees settled in Pakistan, Muzaffarabad, Bagh and Kotli. The qualification for the post in question was prescribed as "Bachelor Degree 2nd Division alongwith two years experience of Protocol Coordination from any Government! Semi Government or Institution". In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioners, being qualified candidates, applied for appointment against the post of Protocol Officer BS-17 and have qualified the MCQs test by securing 68, 66, 70, 66, 69, 70 and 63 marks respectively.
3. Thereafter, the PSC after making scrutiny according to Policy of the PSC and called the shortlisted candidates for interview, whereas the petitioners were not called for interview due to irrelevant experience certificates. It is case of the petitioners that they have passed the MCQs test by securing exemplary marks but the respondents/PSC has not called them for interview and the candidates who were called for interview are much below in the merit list prepared after MCQs/written test as compared to the petitioners. The PSC fixed the date of interview of the candidates except the petitioners as 14.01.2021, however, one Ishtiaq Hussain Khan and some others filed writ petitions before this Court, where upon this Court has issued the stay order/interim injunction in favour of the petitioners due to which the interviews have been postponed till further orders. The petitioners have been issued letters for filing relevant experience certificates and were also provided an opportunity for filing appeals before the concerned quarters, which they have done and their appeals have been dismissed due to irrelevant experience certificates. It is the version of the petitioners that they have qualified the written/MCQs test but the PSC has not called them for interview, which is not only against law, facts, policy and statutory provisions of law but also against the fundamental rights of the petitioners and due to such action of the respondents the petitioners are being deprived off with mala-fide intention and for ulterior motive, hence, the instant writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel' for the petitioners mainly argued the case on the point that the petitioners are highly qualified and are fulfilling, the required qualification and experience as mentioned in the advertisement for the post of Protocol Officer BS-17' but the respondents have deprived off the petitioners mala-fidely and have not provided an opportunity of interview instead they got excellent marks in the written test. The learned Advocates for the petitioners, by mentioning the education, and experience of the petitioners stressed that the PSC has infringed the rights of the petitioners by not issuing call letters to the petitioners for interview, whereas the petitioners have secured marvelous marks in the written test. They are of the view that the petitioners have requisite experience of protocol/coordination by working in different institutions but the respondents rejected their experience certificates due to mala fide intention and to accommodate their favourites. It was argued that every state subject has a right to enjoying equal treatment of law, but in present case the act of the respondents is against the command of supreme law of land. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that it is the command of Constitution to do as required by law but the respondents failed to do so and have violated the mandatory constitutional provisions whereas they were under legal obligation to go through the relevant law/constitution for conducting fair competition. It is the version of the petitioners that objection on the experience certificates of the petitioners is illegal because the petitioners had worked for many years in different departments and have experience of protocol/coordination which is required for appointment against the post of Protocol Officer BS-17. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners are in possession of most relevant certificate of experience and are entitled to be considered for the post of protocol Officer BS-17 by allowing them to participate in the interview (sic). They objected that policy of the PSC is against the norms of (sic) because they are conducting the MCQs/ written test before scrutiny and in this way the procedure in this regard is not only objectionable but the same is a way to deprive of the capable participants. Lastly, the learned counsel' for the petitioners requested for acceptance of the writ petitions and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the interview for the post of Protocol Officer BS-17.
5. On the other hand, Miss Alia Abdul Rehman Legal Advisor for the PSC/respondents argued that the petitioners have no locus standi to file- the instant writ petitions because they have no exact experience of Protocol. It is the argument of the learned Legal Advisor for the PSC that the petitioners had worked on different places but the same has no nexus with the protocol. It has been argued that after MCQs test, the petitioners were asked to submit documents regarding experience of protocol but they remained failed to file by showing the experience of, protocol. The petitioners have been issued letter under rule 4 of the PSC Procedural Rules 1994 that they are not equipped with the requisite experience and if they have any. objection regarding rejection of the experience, the petitioners can file appeal/review before the Commission and decision of the commission shall be final. It is argued that the petitioners have approached the concerned quarters and their versions through appeals/reviews have been rejected, thereafter, the instant writ petitions are not competent before this Court. It is stated that PSC short listed the candidates for interview according to Policy of the PSC and no violation of law has been committed by the PSC.
6. The PSC has no personal grudge against the petitioners and the petitioners have been dropped from taking interview because of lack and irrelevant experience. It is also the argument that the petitioners have got certificates of experience from the irrelevant institutions, so, they have not been called for interview and their experience certificates have not been considered as required through the advertisement in this regard. Finally, learned legal. Adviser, for the PSC requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
7. Ch. Muhammad Manzoor, Learned Additional Advocate General, adopted the arguments of the learned Legal Advisor for the PSC and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
8. I have heard learned counsel' for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. While attending to the writ petition No. 36/2021, the petitioner Ishtiaq Ahmed has placed experience certificate for the advertised post of Protocol Officer which according to PSC version taken in para 5 of the written statement is not tangible and is irrelevant. In order to appreciate the same it is proper to have a survey of the reply of PSC in para 5(ii) of the written statement, which is reproduced as under:- "(4) The aggrieved candidate may apply to the Commission for review against the rejection order and the decision made by the Commission shall be final."
9. Therefore, after making scrutiny and after providing chance to the petitioner for hearing regarding clarification of experience certificate by the PSC, this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having irrelevant certificate of experience.
10. In writ petition No 79/2021, the petitioner Syed Ahsan Ali Bukhari has place the experience certificate got from the Planning & Development Department for Research and Monitoring post which according to PSC version taken, in para 5 of the written statement is not entertainable as the same is irrelevant and not required for the job of Protocol Officer, therefore, this writ petition is also not maintainable.
11. In writ petition No. 81/2021, the petitioners Khurram Siddique and another have filed their experience certificates got from P&D Department on 04.11.2020 issued by Section Officer which according to the version of the PSC is irrelevant and are not showing these certificates that against which post this experience has been obtained The PSC in para 4 of the written statement is categorically denied, which is reproduced as under:- So, the PSC has afforded an opportunity for hearing to the petitioners who failed to substantiate their claim regarding experience certificate. therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
12. In writ petition No. 89/2021, the petitioner Ishtiaq hussain Khan has attached the certificate of experience in his writ petition as Annexure "PA/1 comprised of 2 years experience as Coordinator serving in Govt of Pakistan but the same has not produced before the PSC, whereas the petitioner has produced the certificate of experience before the. PSC comprised of the period of 11 months which was not accepted by the PSC as being lack of experience required for the post of Protocol Officer. The PSC has afforded the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on his appeal before' it but the petitioner could not satisfy the PSC. This position was confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, who could not answer the same. Therefore, this writ petition is also not maintainable.
13. In writ petition No. 92/2021, the petitioner Mushtaq Hussain who placed the experience certificate as Hawaldar during posted at National Guard Directorate Rawalpindi issued on 28.10.2020 in which it has been stated that during the period i.e. April 11 to March 14, he was also performed the duties of Protocol/Coordinator in the said office. The PSC has declared the experience as insufficient because the same itself speaks that the petitioner was assigned additional duty of Protocol who partly performed it. As the PSC has scrutinized the matter of experience of the petitioner in detail who is not meant for it as well, therefore, the decision of PSC for not considering the experience certificate of petitioner is tangible, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
14. In writ petition No. 1527/2021, Muhammad Bilal Yousaf, petitioner, has placed the experience certificate of coordinator issued from NGO which has not been accepted by the PSC as the NGO is not . included in the rules. The PSC in para 4(ii) of the written statement categorically denied the same. In this regard, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing in the appeal by the PSC who could not satisfy the PSC, therefore, his appeal was refused. As the PSC has scrutinized the matter in detail, therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner and his writ petition is not maintainable.
15. Keeping in view the above discussed circumstances, it appears that no illegality has been committed by the PSC while rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioners for appointment against the post of Protocol Officer, whereas all the experience certificates have properly been scrutinized by the PSC, while affording the opportunity of filing appeal/review to all the petitioners in the light of Rule 4(4) of AJ&K PSC (Procedure Rules, 1994). So, no illegality has been found for indulgence of this Court, therefore, all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed with no order as to the cost.