QAISER RASHID KHAN, CJ. The petitioner, through the instant writ petition, has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him as an Assistant Information Officer (BS-16) in the Information and Public Relations Department in place of the private respondent.
2. The gist of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite possessing higher qualification in the relevant subject and two years practical experience in journalism, still the petitioner has been deprived of his appointment against the subject post by wrongly giving preference to the private respondent through award of extra marks to him.
3. The main thrust of the submissions of the learned Advocate General is that due to lack of requisite practical experience of two years in Journalism and possessing Bachelor degree without Journalism subject, the petitioner could not be given extra marks and rather his higher qualification was considered to be his eligibility for the post in question.
4. Arguments heard and the available record perused.
5. It was pursuant to an advertisement qua publication of certain posts including one post of Assistant Information Officer (BS-16) in the Information and Public Relations Department, when the petitioner applied for the same, qualified the test and interview but due to tie in marks, the private respondent on the basis of being older in age has been given preference over him for the subject appointment.
6. The only question for the determination of this court is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for extra marks on the basis of his higher qualification in the relevant subject and can his experience be considered for the purpose of selection?
Before we proceed, it would be worthwhile to have a glance on the advertisement pursuant whereto the petitioner had applied for the subject post. The relevant portion is reproduced below for ready reference:- One (01) Post of Assistant Information Officer in Information and Public Relations Department.
QUALIFICATION: (i) At least Second Class Bachelor's Degree from a recognized University with Journalism as one of the subjects: or
(ii) At least Second Class Bachelor's Degree from a recognized University with two years practical experience in Journalism.
AGE LIMIT: 21 to 30 years PAY SCALE: BPS-16 ELIGIBILITY: Both Sexes ALLOCATION: Zone-2.on is reproduced below for ready reference:- (Underlining is for emphasis)
The above quoted extract / sketch reveals that eligibility of a candidate for the aforesaid post was subject to possessing a bachelor's degree with Journalism as one of the subjects or a bachelor degree with two years practical experience in Journalism. The academic record of the petitioner shows that Journalism was not his subject at B.A level as he had taken up English (comp.), Political Science, Sociology and Pakistan Studies as his subjects and, as such, he does not fall within the first category. As per second category, besides bachelor's degree, two years practical experience in Journalism is the basic requirement for the eligibility of the subject post.
7. Before coming to the practical experience of the petitioner, it would be more appropriate to reproduce Regulation 29(a) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2017 dealing with determination of 'experience', which runs as under:-
29. When experience is laid down as a part of qualification the following principles shall be followed in determining the experience:
(a) If not specifically provided otherwise in the relevant Service Rules, prescribed experience means the experience gained in line in a regular full time paid job acquired after acquiring the prescribed qualification.
(Underlining is for emphasis)
8. So far as the practical experience of the petitioner is concerned, no doubt, he had worked with the Pakhtunkhwa Radio FM 92.6 MHz Mardan for two years from 13.03.2014 to 24.03.2016 but he performed such duties as a Guest Producer (News), which was not a 'full time paid job'. As per the ibid regulation, his said experience cannot be considered for the subject post. On that count, he does not fall within the second category.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall within both the categories as per the advertisement.
However, he was declared eligible to apply for the subject post on the basis of his higher qualification i.e. M.A Journalism and Mass Communication. In this regard, Regulation 19(f)(ii) of the Regulations ibid. is very much clear, which reads as under:- "Candidates who possess qualification higher than the prescribed qualification in the relevant field of studies shall also be considered eligible."
Thus, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the test and interview in the light of the above provision of law. Hence, his request for the grant of extra marks on the basis of higher qualification is misconceived as the same had already been held by the respondent-commission to be for the purpose of conferring eligibility upon him for the subject post.
10. On the contrary, the private respondent was declared eligible for the subject post having taken up Journalism as one of his subjects at the graduate level and thus squarely fell within the first category of the advertisement. Simultaneously, he was awarded extra marks on the basis of his higher qualification i.e. M.A Political Science.
11. In a situation, where the aggregate marks and also the marks in the interview between two candidates are the same or when there is a tie in marks, then, the Regulation 32(c) comes into play, which reads as under:- When two or more than two candidates have secured equal marks in aggregate the candidate who has secured higher marks in the interview shall be marked senior. In case the marks in aggregate and also the marks-in the interview are the same the candidate who is older in age shall be placed senior to the one who is younger. In case all the above-mentioned factors are the same, marks obtained in the final examination of the prescribed qualification for the post shall be the deciding factor.
(Underlining is for emphasis)
12. Since the date of birth of the private respondent is 20.03.1985 as against the petitioner, whose date of birth is 20.01.1990, therefore, the former has been given preference being older in age. When seen in this background, we understand that no case is made out for the interference of this court through the present petition.
13. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition being without any substance is dismissed along with C.M.