SHAHID KHAN, J.- Petitioners have filed the subject constitutional petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, with the following prayer;- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition, the process on the strength of alleged zonal allocation formula be declared unlawful, against the law and be set aside.
(ii) That the official respondents may kindly be directed to initiate the entire process under the mandate of law with fair and transparent manner.
(iii) It is further prayed that the petitioners (belong to zone-3) having high score may kindly be appointed on the subject posts as per their entitlement.
Any other remedy to which the petitioner is found tit in law, justice & equity."
2. It would not be out of place to clarify here that the subject writ petition to the extent of petitioner No. 5, Dr. Ismail Khan, stands dismissed being not pressed on the strength of order of this Court dated 20.12.2023, rendered in C.M No. 2423-M/2023.
3. In short compass the natty-gritty of the case in hand are that petitioners are claimed to be Doctors of Veterinary & Medicine (DVM) having obtained & procured their degrees from recognized Institution of Pakistan i.e. "Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council". Publication bearing No. 01/2022, floated by respondent No. 6 i.e. Director Recruitment, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission in respect of various categories of posts including 300 posts of Veterinary Officers (Health) BPS-17 in Livestock & Dairy Development Extension Wing, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. As per spirit & theme of the ibid advertisement, 249 posts have been allocated for appointment on general quota, 62 posts have been reserved to be filled on open merit, 41 posts have been allocated to Zone-1, Zone-2 & Zone-3 respectively, 32 posts have been allocated to Zone-4 & Zone-5 respectively, 30 posts have been allocated for appointment on female quota, 15 posts have been allocated for appointment on minority quota and lastly 06 posts have been allocated for appointment on disable quota. The petitioners being belong to Zone-3 which comprises of areas of Malakand, Swat, Dir Lower, Dir Upper, Chitral Lower & Chitral Upper applied for the posts of DVM in response to the aforesaid advertisement. After going through the process of test & interview, the petitioners have obtained the merit-position, inter-se, as highlighted below in the tabulated form;- S. No.NameAcademic Total Marks 20Interlaw Total Marks 25Hifz-ul-Quran Marks 83M. Phill Marks 01Total Marks 1Noman Siddiqui12 24 Nil Nil 36 2 Adnan Ahmad15 20 1 1 37 3Hafeez-ur- Rehman12 23 Nil 1 36 4 Farman Ali 13 22 Nil 1 36 5 Shahid Karim 13 23 Nil Nil 36 As per stance of the petitioners in the light of ibid advertisement, 62 posts have been allocated for appointment on open merit, wherein, 41 posts should have been marked to Zone-3 i.e. for the appointment of the present petitioners & other aspirants of the said Zone-3, however, the respondents on the basis of "Zonal Allocation Formula" have recommended the candidates as per provincial merit of qualified candidates on the strength of zonal-wise allocation as under;- Zone-115 recommended candidates Zone-233 recommended candidates Zone-305 recommended candidates Zone-409 recommended candidates Zone-50 recommended candidate Total62 After applying the aforesaid zonal allocation formula, the respondents have made the following zonal-wise allocation qua recommendation of the candidates against 249 seats;- Zone-118 Zone-210 Zone-310 Zone-411 Zone-513 Total62 As per claim of the petitioners, the respondents have adjusted/recommended 33 candidates on open merit out of 62 seats, besides, adjustment of 41 candidates on his respective zone and thereby 74 candidates have been recommended from Zone-2 only despite lower merit position, whereby, the last candidate of said Zone had secured 37 marks. On the basis of aforesaid formula, the respondents have selected 05 candidates from Zone-3 on open merit and 41 candidates on zonal quota, so, total 46 candidates have been selected, whereby, the last candidate from Zone-3 i.e. the Zone of the present petitioners was having 38 marks as against the last candidate of Zone-2 who had secured 37 marks. As per stance of the petitioners, according to open merit based formula, 16 candidates of Zone-3 (who were having better merit position in terms of their total accumulative scores) was/is having a right to be appointed on open merit instead of 05 candidates recommended by the respondents on the basis of aforesaid zonal allocation formula, meaning thereby, then 57 candidates would have been having a chance to be appointed on the subject posts. As a matter of reference, the petitioners have given a list of 16 meritorious candidates of Zone-3 as follows;- S.NoName ScoreMerit order No. 1 Khadim Hussain42 2 2 Gul Rukh 41 13 3 Abdullah Khan 41 16 4 Mlushaq Ahmad40 20 5 Zeeshan-ul-Haq40 21 6 Zeeshan Ahmad40 22 7 Yasar Nawaz 40 23 8 Naveed Ullah 40 27 9 Sajad Khan 40 31 10 Mudasir Nazar 40 37 11 Tariq Khan 39 48 12 Hayat Ullah 39 50 13 Sana-ur-Rahman39 55 14 Luqman Shah 39 58 15 Shabir Ahmad 39 59 16 Jamal-ud-Din 39 52 As per stance of the petitioners, all the above-mentioned 16 candidates have been appointed on zonal quota, whereas, as per their merit position, as highlighted in column No. 4 reproduced above, they should have been appointed on open merit, therefore, the petitioners and all other candidates belong to Zone-3 have been deprived of their due right of appointment against the subject posts of DVM.
4. It obliged the petitioners to approach this Court through the subject writ petition for an appropriate remedy.
5. Respondents were put on notice and in compliance with the directions of the Court; parawise comments have been furnished accordingly, whereby, their stance was that the petitioners were lower in merit amongst the selected candidates in view of the criteria/ zonal allocation formula carved out by the respondents. In their comments, the respondents have also given reference of several verdicts/judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court, whereby, whereby, the matter-in- issue with respect to appointment of candidates on the basis of zonal allocation formula has been settled.
6. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Addl: A.G appearing on behalf of the official respondents have been heard at a substantial length and record gone their valuable assistance.
7. First & foremost it would be in the fitness of things to reproduce the relevant part of the ibid proclamation/advertisement bearing No. 01/2022, which relates to the matter-in-issue i.e. appointment of the subject posts of veterinary officer;- Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries & Cooperative Department
1. Three hundred (300) posts of Veterinary Officers (Health) (BPS-17) in Livestock and Dairy Development (Extension Wing), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Qualification:- Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) OR equivalent qualification in Veterinary Sciences from recognized University and Registration with Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC).
Age Limit:- 22 to 35 years Pay Scale:- BPS-17 Eligibility:- Both Male & Female Allocation:-
(a) Two hundred &forty nine (249) posts of General Quota; Sixty two (62) to merit, forty one (41) each to Zone-1, Zone-2, Zone-3 and thirty two (32) each to Zone-4 & Zone-S.
(b) Thirty (30) posts for Female Quota to Merit.
(c) Fifteen(15) posts for Minority Quota to Merit.
(d) Six (06) posts for Disable Quota to Merit.
Likewise, since the main grievance of the petitioners relates to zonal-wise allocation of seats/vacancies by the respondents/Recruiting Authority on the basis of "Zonal Allocation Formula", therefore, the aforesaid formula is reproduced hereunder for ready reference;- "Zonal Allocation Formula"
I am directed to the subject noted above and to state that in accordance with the provisions of the S&GAD Notification No.SORI (S&GAD)3-39/70, dated 3.2.1990 there shall be a block of 24 vacancies for posts carrying BPS-16 & 17 for the purpose of zonal allocation. Of these six shall form merit quota and the remaining 18 shall be reserved for bona fide residents of Zone, 1, 2,3,4 & 5.
2. For the purpose of practical application of the new zonal formula a new rotational cycle of 24 vacancies shall become operative with immediate effect in the following order;- VacancyZonal Allocation 1st Merit 2nd Zone 1 3rd Zone 2 4th Zone 3 5th Merit 6th Zone 4 7th Zone 5 8th Zone 1 9th Merit 10th Zone 2 11th Zone 3 12th Zone 4 13th Merit 14th Zone 5 15th Zone 1 16th Zone 2 17th Merit 18th Zone 3 19th Zone 4 20th Zone 5 21st Merit 22nd Zone 1 23rd Zone 2 24th Zone 3
3. In view of the changed formula the Commission has decided that fresh allocation/adjustment of all the vacancies will start from the first vacancy of the first block of the new formula, provided that in a cadre the over and under subscription as it stood on the date of commencement of new formula shall be taken into account in future allocation of vacancies under the new system.
4. I am accordingly to request you that fresh requisition may be placed on the Commission on the basis of the new zonal allocation formula indicating the previous over/under subscription of various zones.
8. It is the plain & simple case of the petitioners that they have been deprived by the respondents/K.P Public Service Commission from their due right of appointment against the subject posts of DVM, as 16 candidates of Zone-3, whose names and merit position has been highlighted in Para 14 of the writ petition in tabulated form should have been appointed on the basis of open merit instead of 05 candidates on the basis of "Zonal Allocation Formula", reproduced above, therefore, such an act on the part of respondents is not only violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners but it also infringed the valuable rights of other deserving & meritorious candidates belong to Zone-3.
9. In order to rebut the aforesaid stance/claim of the petitioners, the K.P Public Service Commission filed their detailed & comprehensive comments, whereby, they have come up with a reply that in response to the ibid advertisement a total number of 1515 candidates filed their respective applications including the present petitioners and all the candidates were subjected to the process of interview. After finalization of the process of interview, all the petitioners could not secure the higher merit position amongst the set of competitors/aspirants. As per merit list, petitioner No.1 was placed at serial No.283, petitioner No.2 at serial No.271, petitioner No. 3 at serial No.286, petitioner No. 4 at serial No. 292 and petitioner No. 6 at serial 284, whereas, the last recommendee of the Zone-3 of the petitioners was placed at serial No. 248, therefore, all the petitioners being lower in merit in terms of their total accumulative marks were not considered for appointment against the subject posts of DVM. In their comments, the respondents have also defended the "Zonal Allocation Formula" with great zeal & zest by elaborating its historical aspect as well as its present status being vogue in field. It has also been emphasized in the comments that the ibid formula is not for benefit of any individual or group of persons of a particular zone or area rather it is for the betterment of neglected section of society who had suffered a lot in terms backwardness and lack socio & economic opportunities. The comments so furnished by the answering respondents further reveals that the candidates having good merit position was given preference in terms of appointment against the subject posts irrespective of their zones as per zonal allocation formula.
10. The controversy-in-hand involves in the subject writ petition has not been alien to this Court rather the grievances of similarly placed persons like the present petitioners have been resolved amicably by the Apex Court as well as this Court. For instance, in Civil Petition Far Leave to Appeal No. 324 of 2013 Titled "Manzoor Alam Khan 'Vs Govt: of KPK & others" decided on 05.07.2013, the Apex Court in respect of applicability of zonal allocation formula has held as under;- We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer and have perused the record. The notification dated 24.09.2010 provides the formula which is dependent on rational cycle rotating the adjustment of seats against merit quota. The logic behind the formula notified by the Commission, prima fade, seems to be that all the areas (backward tribal areas and advanced settled areas) get their due share in the limited pool of vacancies. The formula is based on intelligible differentia and, in no way, offends the right of the petitioner and provides equitable distribution of vacancies. On perusal, the notified formula reflects that merit seats are not allocated to the toppers, but each 4th vacancy goes to merit seat in the block of 24 vacancies, ensuring equitable distribution of vacancies throughout the Province. Though the petitioner was better placed in the merit list than the respondent No.5, but he belongs to Zone H whereas the respondent No.5 belongs to Zone 1, and the allocation was correctly made in accordance with the zonal allocation formula notified from time to time. The Commission recommended the respondent No.5 for appointment in terms of notification refers to hereinabove, which has not been impugned by the petitioner before the learned High Court. In the given circumstances, the learned High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner.
In the chain of precedents, there is another judgment of this Court rendered in writ petition No. 244-B of 2012 Titled "Farhat Shaheen v/s Govt: of KPK Public Service Commission & others" decided on 13.02.2018, whereby, the aforesaid rational expounded by the Apex Court qua the zonal allocation formula was validated & affirmed in the following words:- The logic behind the formula notified by S&GAD on the face it, seems to be that all the areas (backward areas including tribal areas and advanced settled areas) get their due share in the limited pool of vacancies.
Likewise, this Court in writ petition No.1747-P of 2016 Titled "Sand Ullah v/s IMP Public Service Commission & others" decided on 31.05.2023 in context of inter-se comparison between zonal allocation formula and Articles 2-A, 4,18,25& 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has formed the following view:- " In view of the above discussion, it can clearly be said that the allocation of zonal seats/zonal allocation quota is neither repugnant to Articles 2-A, 4,18,25 & 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic of Pakistan, 1973 nor it has infringed any legal, vested or accrued right of the petitioners.
By the amendment in Article 27 of the Constitution, the Constitution had allowed the quota system for 40 years from 1973, subsequently, extension of this period for further twenty years was approved by the Cabinet as observed hereinabove. The incorporation of quota/zonal allocation in Regulation No.33 of the Khyber Public Service Commission regulations and proviso to rule 12 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer)
Rules, 1989 is based on reasonable classification."
In view of the above unambiguous, explicit & clear-cut verdicts/ judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court it is an admitted fact on both ends that the zonal allocation formula is aimed to protect & secure the rights of the people of backward areas as compared to settled areas in a limited pool of vacancies. In context of the case in hand, it is an admitted fact floating on the surface of the record and as rightly pointed out by the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the private respondents that the petitioners on one hand have not even impugned the notification on the basis of which the zonal allocation formula was notified by the provincial government and on the other hand they cannot take benefit of the meritorious candidates of Zone-3 when admittedly their own merit position is standing in vacuum. He further substantiates his plea in terms that the government has full authority & mandate to up-lift the people of the backward areas who had left behind in terms of lack of socio economic resources as compared to individuals of advanced settled areas. In such state of affairs, the learned ASC representing the petitioners though argued the case at a substantial length, however, he could not make out a case for interference of this Court under its extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
11. In view of above, the subject petition being bereft of any merits is hereby dismissed.