1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner is an M. Sc. In Agricultural Economics. He was one of the candidates for one of the sixteen posts of Extra Assistant Directors of Agriculture advertised by the West Pakistan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission). In due course, the petitioner and other candidates were called for interview by the Commission. The interview was actually held by Brigadier A. A. Chaudliry, one of the members of the Commission, in association with the departmental repre--sentatives. As a result of the selection made after interview, the Commission recommended the names of only the respondents 3 to 10 for appointment to the said posts. The petitioner not having been selected by the Commission, filed a writ petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution, calling in question the validity of the selection of the candidates made by the Public Service Commission and its recommendation of the names of the respondents 3 to 10 for appointment as Extra Assistant Directors of Agriculture. The main ground urged in support of the writ petition, in the petitioner's own words, was that 'a Single Member of the Commission (Brigadier Chaudhury in this case) was not qualified to assume the functions of the Public Service Commis-- sion or to conduct its meetings or business when the minimum quorum, as laid down by law, is of two Members of the Commission'. A Division Bench of the High Court found no substance in this contention and accordingly dismissed the writ petition in limine. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.
2. Mian Fazl-i-Mahmood, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to rules 3 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission. These are reproduced below :- "3. The quorum for a meeting of the Commission shall be two, but the Chairman may adjourn any business at a meeting if he is of the opinion that it cannot conveniently be transacted owing to the non-attendance of any member,
9. (i) The Commission may, subject to such directions as if thinks fit, delegate to a Committee, constituted from among the members, any of its functions.
(ii) Every such Committee shall consist of not less than two members.
(iii) The decision of the Committee shall be communicated to the Chairman before any action is taken thereon, and the Chairman may thereupon direct that such decision shall be referred to a meting of the Commission for further considera--tion and decision, out in the absence of such direction, the decision of the Committee shall be deemed to be the decision of the commission."
3. In view of these rules, it is submitted that a Single Member of the Public Service Commission is not competent to interview candidates for selection. This contention was also raised before the High Court, bun it was found to be of no force for, rule 8 of the said Rules, in its opinion, empowered a Single Member to hold interview as was done in this case. Rule 8 runs thus :- "The Commission may refer any matter to an individual member or to a Committee consisting of Members and such other persons, if any, as the Commission may appoint, for consideration and report to the Commission."
4. Learned counsel contends that the quorum for a meeting of the whole Commission is two under rule 3 and that the minimum number of the members of a committee to which the Commission's functions have been delegated, is also two. Accordingly, the Commission, as contended by the learned counsel, can not Per--form any of its functions unless at least two members thereof participate. As regards rule 8 authorising an individual member to consider any matter referred to him, the learned counsel submits that there is a distinction between a function and a matter.
5. According to him, the Constitution of 1962 entrusts the Commission with the performance of certain functions which are not the same thing as matters. In support of this, he has referred to Article 186(1) of that Constitution. When it was pointed out that while the preamble of Article 186 mentions `functions', clause (b) of that very Article specifically refers to 'matter', the learned counsel found it difficult to maintain his contention that there is a distinction between 'function' and 'matter'.
6. However, the Rules of procedure, read as a whole. Shows that the decision on every matter which it is required to be taken by the Com--mission under the Constitution is ultimately taken by the Commission itself. Rule 9 permits delegation of one or more functions of the Commission to a committee consisting of not less than two of its members. The Committee's decision is required to be communicated to the Commission which, if not interfered with by it, shall be deemed to be the decision of the Commission itself. On the other hand, rule 8 empowers an individual member of the Commission to consider a particular matter referred to him and to send his report to the Commission. The individual member's report is sent to the Commission obviously for taking decision on it by the Commission itself.
7. Thus the commission, in any case, has the final say on a matter either it is considered by an individual member under rule 8 or by a Committee under its delegated power under rule 9. It will be noticed that under rule 8 only a particular matter is referred to an individual member at a time, and with the compel--tion of consideration of that matter the authority of the individual member ceases. In the case of delegation to a Committee, however, one or more functions of the Commission may be delegated, and the Committee continues to retain its authority in relation to such functions for so long as the delegation remains in force. For example, if the function of the Commission in all disciplinary matters under Article 186(2) of the 1962-Constitution is delegated to a Committee, then, that Committee, without any further reference to it, is competent to consider and take decision on all such disciplinary matters as are referred to the Commission by the various Departments of the Government, from time to time. In contrast, the individual member's authority to consider a matter ceases with the sending of a report on it to the Commis--sion. However, as pointed out earlier, the Commission itself has the final say in a matter whether it is a matter covered by rule 8 or rule 9. Accordingly, it can not be said that the inter--view of the candidates in this case by a single member of the Commission was unlawful, the holding of interview by that member having been authorised under rule 8.
8. The petitioner appeared before the single member for inter--view. At the time of his interview, lie made no grievance about the single member's competence to hold the interview. It was only after he had realised that he did not succeed in the interview that he came up with the grievance that the single member was not competent to hold the interview. This was a belated realisation on his part. When the petitioner voluntarily appeared for an interview before the single member and made no objection about his competence, he cannot be said to be aggrieved so as to be entitled to seem remedy tinder Article 98.
9. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.