BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court whereby he challenged the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission in favour of respondent No.3 for his appointment as Deputy Director Dawat-o- -Irshad in the Directorate of Amer-Bil-Maroof Wa Nahee-Aanil-Munker for which post the appellant had also appeared as a candidate. The writ petition was dismissed in limine. '
2. The High Court has held that the appellant was not academically qualified for appointment as Deputy Director Dawat-o-Irshad. The ' Sanad' held by the appellant, on which he based his claim, is M.A. (Shahadat-ul-Almiyya fil Uloomil Arabia Wal Islamia). It had been notified by the Public Servipe Commission that qualifications acquired through "Tanzeem-ul-Madaras" shall be recognised if the same stand approved as being equal to M.A. Arabic or Islamic Studies by the University Grants Commission. It was noted. By the High Court that -by a notification issued by the University Grants Commission on 17th of November 1982 .It was decided that the ' Sanad' mentioned above, which is held by the appellant, would be treated equal to M.A. Arabic/Islamic Studies for the purpose of teaching Arabic and Islamic Studies and for pursuing higher studies in these subjects but not for employment in fields other than those mentioned above. It is also laid down in the notification mentioned above that for employment in fields other than teaching such '
Sanad' holders were required to qualify two additional subjects at the B.A. Level from the University and that they would also be required to .Qualify in the subjects of Pakistan Studies and Islamic Studies at the B.A. Level.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, could not show to us that the factual position in respect of the academic qualification of the appellant is different from what is incorporated in thejudgment of the High Court. Our reading of the notification of the University Grants Commission dated 17th of November 1982 shows that the appellant is only entitled to be treated as M.A. Arabic/Islamic Studies for the purpose of teaching those subjects in Colleges and Universities and for pursuing higher studies. He is not qualified to be appointed as Deputy Director Dawat-o-Irshadl A as it is not a teaching job in College/University.
4. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal also contended that the appellant had obtained more marks in the test held by the Public Service Commission but respondent was given extra marks for qualification which the Commission was not allowed by law to do. In our view it is not necessary to attend this point since the appellant was not, in any case, qualified for appointment to the post of Deputy Director Dawat-o-Irshad, it would be useless exercise to decide this point.