MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J. Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed the eligibility criteria for Moavineen-e-Hujjaj/Nazims laid down for Hajj, 2025 in the advertisement dated 25.12.2024, published by respondent No.1/Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony ("MoRA&IH"), Islamabad.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner primarily submits that petitioner is entitled to perform welfare duties on the basis of qualifying the written and physical test by securing 91 out of 100 more than qualifying marks i.e. 90 for Punjab (Fresh) quota as per the MoRA&IH selection/shortlisting criteria duly uploaded by NTS on its official website and submission of requisite attested documents to MoRA&IH vide TCS Dispatch dated 12.03.2025 in compliance to the NTS SMS dated 07.03.2025 as final step upon selection on merit. He adds that lawful right has already been accrued in favour of petitioner, having been selected on merit, which cannot be rescinded/recalled as a matter of routine, especially keeping in view the principle of locus poenitentiae. He maintains that impugned action, being ultra vires, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. In support, he has relied upon a plethora of esteemed judgments including Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another (1997 SCMR 15), Qazi Abdul Jalil v. N.W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation through Chairman and others (2010 SCMR 1933), Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 1), Abdul Karim Nausherwani and another v. The State through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner (2015 SCMR 397), Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others (2022 SCMR 1583), Nazar Muhammad Waraich and 7 others v. Zonal Head, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Paris Road, Sialkot and another (2010 PLC (C.S.) 701) and Hafiz Junaid Mahmood v. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 1). When confronted, learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed the above submissions by contending that although petitioner was shortlisted under field supporting staff category, however, quota of Hujjaj has recently been reduced to 112,000 resulting in a corresponding decrease in a number of welfare staff positions to 1120, resulting in allocation of 450 position for Moavineen-e- Hujjaj/Nazim category, therefore, the merit list was recalculated on the basis of revised number of vacancies. He has further pinpointed that petitioner committed concealment of facts while applying for the category of Moavineen-e-Hujjaj through NTS, and enumerated following discrepancies found in NTS form as compared to factual position of petitioner:- FACTUAL POSITION SUBMITTED IN NTS FORM He is an employee of PAEC In SPS-05Regular Government Employee BPS-12 Drawing Salary from the DepartmentDrawing Salary from AGPR Required a Medical Fitness Certificate duly issued by DHQ concernedSubmitted an unregistered Medical Fitness Certificate having No official number of DHQ concerned Required mandatory NOC from departmentSubmitted an undertaking instead of departmental NOC Required pay slip issued by AGPRSubmitted pay slip issued by PAEC instead of AGPR
3. Record shows that respondent No.1 has clearly mentioned in the impugned advertisement in categorical terms at clause 'viii' that M/oRA&IH reserves the right to increase or decrease number of Moavineen/Nazims in any category keeping in view the actual requirement in that category as per Half quota/Saudi Taleemat. It is also evident from available record that petitioner submitted application without providing mandatory documents including NOC and Medical Fitness Certificate, thereby concealing relevant facts, as highlighted supra. Even otherwise, petitioner is an employee of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, i.e. an autonomous body, which does not fall under the administrative control of any Ministry of Division as per Rules of Business, 1973. Besides, petitioner moved application in this regard after accepting all terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement and undertook to comply with all policies and instructions issued by Respondent No.1.
4. Undoubtedly, the High Court can under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 annul an order or a Policy framed by the Executive, if it is violative of the Constitution, law or based upon mala fide, however, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate that the Hajj Policy impugned through instant petition suffers from any of these infirmities. There is no cavil with the proposition that the controversy before this Court relates to policymaking domain of the Executive and I am not inclined to interfere in the same in view of the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (2013 SCMR 1749), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Hayat Hussain and others (2016 SCMR 1021), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar and others v. Sher Aman and others (2022 SCMR 406) and Vice-Chancellor Agriculture University, Peshawar and others v.
Muhammad Shafiq other (2024 SCMR527) .
5. As regard the stance of petitioner qua discriminatory treatment having been meted out to petitioner, it suffices to say that no such proof whatsoever has been brought on record which may establish that petitioner has been treated differently in the matter, rather petitioner is claiming the relief as a matter of right, which is not tenable under the law.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned advertisement published by respondent No.1, warranting any interference by this Court.
The case law relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, being on distinguishable facts and circumstances, is not applicable to the instant case.
7, In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter, therefore, instant petition, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.