This order will dispose of Intra-Court Appeal No.30 of 1997 (Federal Isublic Service Commission v.
Ishtiaq Ahmad and others) and Intra-Court Appeal No.31 of 1997 (Federal Public Service Commission v. Mazhar Hussain Raja and others) as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. By a public notice, dated the 19th July, 1995, the Federal Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be called 'Commission') invited applications for recruitment to 64 temporary posts of Income Tax Officer (likely to be continued for indefinite period) in the Income Tax Department, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad, in BPS-16. In the notice, it was provided that the candidates for such posts were required to appear in two papers, namely, English Composition end General Knowledge for 100 marks each. Qualifying marks were announced to be 40 %.
2. Respondents Nos. l to 6 in Writ Petition No. 1614 of 1996 and respondents Nos. l to 4 in Writ Petition No.319 of 1997 claim that they had qualified the written examination but no call letters for interview were issued to them. Consequently, they move the said Constitutional petitions. Writ Petition No- 1614 of 1996 was accepted by order of the learned Single Judge, dated the 17th February, 1997.
Directing the Commission to interview respondents Nos. l to 6 who had secured the qualifying marks. On 24-2-1997, when Writ Petition No.319 of 1997 came up for hearing, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners requested the Court for disposal of Writ Petition in terms of orders passed in Writ Petition No. 1614 of 1996. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Kiani, the learn, ed Standing Counsel expressed no objection to the grant of such relief. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of.
3. The Federal Public Service Commission being aggrieved of the said orders of the learned Single Judge has preferred the present appeals claiming that, sine 3728 candidates had qualified the written examination and it was not possible to interview all of them within a short period available with the Commission, in exercise of the powers vested upon it under rule 15 of the Rules framed by the Commission for regulating the conduct of its business a methodology was adopted to short list the number of candidates for the purpose of interview. For that purpose, the total number of 385 candidates by taking top ten qualified persons for posts on merits and five top merit candidates against one post each reserved for Provincial/regional quotas, were approved for A interview by the Commission. It was further claimed that, since the short listing of the candidates was made in accordance with the relevant rules, the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the Commission was not vested with the powers of short listing.
4. For facility of reference the said rule 15 (iii) is reproduced below:--(i) .................................................... (ii) ....................................................
(iii)consider all applications received and, when necessary, interview such candidates as it considers prima facie most suitable for appointment and also call for character rolls of such candidates as are Government servants and such other papers as it may require for the purpose of selection. "
5.Learned Standing courisel also referred to the General Instructions attached to the application form for the aforesaid posts. The relevant extract of B said rule 23(a) is as under:- "23.(a) The Commission has the right to lay down the criteria for selecting the candidates for interview through tests/examination."
6.From the public notice, dated the 19th July, 1995, referred to above whereby application for the posts of Income Tax Officers were invited, it is clear that no reference had been made therein that any short listing of candidates C qualifying in the examination shall be made for interviews, if so deemed necessary by the Commission. Similarly, even after a large number of applications have been received by the Federal Public Service Commission no such announcement was made that only specified number of persons securing the highest marks in the written test shall be called for interview. The public notice clearly gives the impression that all those who qualify written examination shall be called for interview. No doubt, that the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of section 7-A of the Federal Service Commission Ordinance, 1997, is empowered to make rules for regulating the conduct of its business and in that respect such rules may include any instructions but the equity demands that any such rules or instructions which jeopardise the rights of a candidate for a post are clearly notified and be brought in the knowledge of the persons qualifying for a post through test and interview to be conducted by the Commission. The Commission was also at liberty to increase the qualifying marks or to provide in the public notice referred to above that in case of a large number of candidates qualifying the written examination short listing of the candidates for calling them for interview could be made. It was contended by the learned. Standing counsel that the Examination Committee of the Commission had unanimously taken a decision for short listing because of large number of applications received for recruitment of 64 posts of Income Tax, Officers. Even at that stage, when the examination was not held, if the Committee had arrived at a conclusion that because of large number of applications, the number of persons qualifying in written test is likely to be quite a large to whom it was not possible for the Commission to call for the interview, the decision of the Committee D should have either been published - through another public notice or communicated to the applicants while issuing roll numbers or intimating dates of the examination, so that every person appearing in the examination should have been known prior to appearing in the examination that mere securing of 40% marks in written tests would not entitle him to be called for interview.
7. In, view thereof, there seems no legal infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge to call for any interference, particularly when in Writ Petition No.319 of 1997, the learned standing counsel for the Federation had conceded to the request of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners for acceptance of the writ petition in the light of the orders made in Writ Petition No. 1614 of 1996 on the 17th February, 1997. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine.
M.A.K./F-30/L dismissed.