RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHlD, J. The petitioner lias find this Constitutional petition to impugn the appointment letter dated 14.12.1995, ' whereby, respondent No. 4 namely Naeem Arif was appointed as Octroi Inspector, Town Committee Kot Abdul Malik District Sheikhupura. It was contended that the aforesaid .Order was illegal, ultra-vires, void and without I jurisdiction as it infringed the recruitment policy. !
2. Brief facts are that the post of Octroi Inspector was advertised in Daily 'Sadaqat" on 6.11.1995, whereby, applications were invited from the candidates having qualification of Matric with five years experience in the town Committee. On the basis of that advertisement the petitioner alongwith others applied for the aforesaid post. He claimed to have passed the I matriculation examination in 1st Division and had also passed F.A. In lst f Division and obtained the degree in B.A from Punjab University IInd Division. He further claimed that he had six years of experience as Tax Collector. In this respect, he contended that he. Worked for two years as ,v Supervisor of a Contractor in the Town Committee and for for years as Supervisor with the Contractor "in Zila Council. It was, therefore, urged that he w%s better qualified candidate being domiciled in the Town Committee, Kot Abdul Malik, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. Respondent No. 4 was allegedly an intruder as he did not reside within the limits of Town Committee Kot Abdul Malik and had obtained the domicile with mala fide intention to secure the job of Octroi Inspector. He had allegedly lesser qualifications and experience than the petitioner, but was inducted in service under political pressure on the recommendation of Bashir Ahamd Gujar, M.P.A. The appointment of respondent No. 4 was, therefore, alleged to be violative of the rules and regulations and also ignored the merit policy. The appointment was also challenged on the ground that the District Recruitment Committee was not properly constituted as its Chairman i.e; the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and the Member i.e; Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Sheikhupura were not present at the time of interviews which were only conducted by the Administrator, Town Committee, Kot Abdul Malik who was one of the members of the Recruitment Committee. !
2. Brief facts are that the post of Octroi Inspector was advertised in Daily 'Sadaqat" on 6.11.1995, whereby, applications were invited from the candidates having qualification of Matric with five years experience in the town Committee. On the basis of that advertisement the petitioner alongwith others applied for the aforesaid post. He claimed to have passed the I matriculation examination in 1st Division and had also passed F.A. In lst f Division and obtained the degree in B.A from Punjab University IInd Division. He further claimed that he had six years of experience as Tax Collector. In this respect, he contended that he. Worked for two years as ,v Supervisor of a Contractor in the Town Committee and for for years as Supervisor with the Contractor "in Zila Council. It was, therefore, urged that he w%s better qualified candidate being domiciled in the Town Committee, Kot Abdul Malik, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. Respondent No. 4 was allegedly an intruder as he did not reside within the limits of Town Committee Kot Abdul Malik and had obtained the domicile with mala fide intention to secure the job of Octroi Inspector. He had allegedly lesser qualifications and experience than the petitioner, but was inducted in service under political pressure on the recommendation of Bashir Ahamd Gujar, M.P.A. The appointment of respondent No. 4 was, therefore, alleged to be violative of the rules and regulations and also ignored the merit policy. The appointment was also challenged on the ground that the District Recruitment Committee was not properly constituted as its Chairman i.e; the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and the Member i.e; Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Sheikhupura were not present at the time of interviews which were only conducted by the Administrator, Town Committee, Kot Abdul Malik who was one of the members of the Recruitment Committee.
3. X The comments were called from the respondents in which they denied that the Chairman of the Committee or its member i.e; Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G) were not present during the interviews. It was alleged that the Committee consisted of the Chairman i.e; Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, its members i.e; Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Sheikhupura and the Administrator, Town Committee Kot Abdul Malik. Who were present . At the time of interviews of the candidates and also finalized the selection of .< such candidates. It Was further contended in the comments that the I . Appointment of respondent No. 4 was on merit because he was eligible and ! Found to be the most deserving candidate. The allegation that respondent No. 4 was not the resident of Kot Abdul Malik was denied in view of the domicile certificate, produced by the aforesaid candidate which showed that he was , the resident of Kot Abdul Malik.
4. The petitioner find a 'replication^ to the' comments in which the contentions made in the petition were reiterated, It was further alleged that f domicile certificate P.8 (Annexure-III) was. Obtained by respondent No. 4 . After the advertisement of the post of Octroi Inspector and as such, it Was : manoeuvred show that he was the resident of that area A copy of the I.D.' Card P.9 (Annexure-IV) was relied upon to show that respondent No. 4 was I the permanent resident of District Gujrat am1 was temporarily residing in j Cantonment area of Lahore. The educational certificates were produced to ) show that the respondent had received the education at Lahore. A certificate from Tehsildar, Ferozwala was produced to show that respondent No. 4 was not resident of that area. In this respect, reliance was placed on Annexure X. Likewise, the list of electoral rolls was produced to show that the name of respondent No. 4 or his father did nut figure therein and as such, the claim of f respondent No. 4 that he hailed from the area of Town Committee, Kot Abdul Malik was not only false but malafide. Annexures 1 and II were placed on record alongwith re-joinder by the petitioner to show that respondent No. 1 .4 was recommended by the local M.P.A, alongwith other candidates who were all appointed to some other posts. It was, therefore, contended that the appointment of respondent No. 4 having been made purely on political basis was bad in the eye of law as it was not the function of the MPAs to get the post filled which was to be filled on merit alone. Since the appointment was politically made, therefore, it was not sustainable in the eye of law. Reliance was placed on PLD 1993 SCM R 1287 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) and PLJ 1996 Lahore 101 (Multan Bench).
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the appointment of respondent No. 4 was made on merit as he was fully ! Qualified for appointment, to the post of Octroi Inspector.
It was denied that, the appointment was made under political pressure, On the contrary, it was alleged that the District Recruitment Committee was constituted in accordance with the policy of the Government to fill the vacant post and it had called the eligible candidates for interviews and on the basis of their performance, the selection was made. Respondent. No. 4 being a suitable candidate was selected for appointment of merit irrespective of any political pressure. Lastly, it was alleged that the domicile certificate, produced by ; respondent No. 4 was genuine and it was immaterial that it was obtained after the advertisement of the post in question, It was further alleged that r there was nothing on record to show that the issuance of domicile certificate was a malafide action either on the part , of the respondent No. 4 or the issuing authority. The mere. Fact that the petitioner. Was educated at Lahore or was residing at Lahore to receive the education would not disqualify him to be a candidate for Octroi Inspector in the Town Committee of Kot Abdul ' Malik as he had obtained the requisite domicile from the District Magistrate concerned. The requisite minimum qualification for the post was Matric with five years experience which the respondent possessed and as such, his appointment was alleged to be well within the frame work of recruitment policy, rules and regulations on the subject.
6. I have considered the foregoing contentions and find that the minimum qualification for the. Post was Matric with five years experience. There is nothing on record to, show that these qualifications were not fulfilled ) by respondent No. 4. On the contrary, it appears that he is a Graduate and , possessed the requisite experience to be appointed to the post. The mere fact that he was educated at Lahore and during that period, he had resided in Lahore would not make his domicile certificate' issued by the District Magistrate, Sheikhupura to be a malafide, act. The domicile certificate is issued on an enquiry regarding the residence of the applicant, and therefore, t it cannot be readily said that it was invalid or that it was obtained with malafide intention. The qualification set out in the advertisement i.e; Annexure 'A' (page 9) would show that respondent No. 4 fulfilled the basic qualifications rather possessed the Bachelor's degree which was admittedly a higher qualification than the requisite qualification for the post. Though the petitioner was also having a Bachelor's degree but that would not give him - any edge over the petitioner because it was up to the selection Committee to assess as to which one of the candidates having the required qualification was the best and suitable to the post of Octri Inspector. The Selection j.
Committee consisted of A Chairman and two members and all of them came to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 was the suitable candidate for selection and accordingly his appointment was made. The mere allegation that the Deputy Commissioner i.e; the Chairman or the member i.e. Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Sheikhupura were not present at the time of ; interviews or at the time of selection would not make any substantial difference because the Chairman as well as the member aforesaid claimed to be present during the selection process. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the writ petition were intrinsically true as those were denied in the comments offered by the respondents. Likewise, the mere fact that letter of the MPA was placed on record to show that he had recommended the name of respondent No. 4 would not- be enough to say that the selection was made under political influence. It has been totally denied in the comments by the respondents that any political pressure was taken into account while making the appointment. On the contrary, it was urged that the appointment was made purely on merit. The other documents such as the certificate of Tehsildar, Ferozewala or the electoral lists are not the conclusive documents to disentitle respondent No. 4 to hold the post to which, he has been appointed by the District Selection Committee on the basis of merit. It is enough to settle the question of domicile because the aforesaid respondent has produced the domicile certificate issued by the competent Authority to show that he is the resident of that area.
7. In view of my above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed with costs.