Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No,1 announced a recruitment scheme for the appointment of P.T.C. teachers vide notification published in daily 'Jang', Rawalpindi on 4-1-1997.
The petitioner sent her application alongwith her all requisite documents. Her name was firstly shown in the merit list which was subsequently removed by respondent No,2 on the basis of letter dated 16-1-1997 of respondent No, 1 whereby all candidates including the petitioner qualifying their P.T.C. Courie from areas other than Punjab were debarred to appear in test and interview. She further alleged that this order of respondent No, 1, dated 16-1-1997 was challenged and its operation was suspended vide order dated 18-2-1997 and the department was directed to consider all candidates who had qualified their courses from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and whose names were excluded from consideration for appointment and to issue appointment letter on merit within ten days. She. alleged that she approached respondent No,2 for the purpose of test and interview but her case was delayed on one pretext or the other as respondent No,2 was demanding a sum of Rs,30,000 for issuing letter of appointment.
2. The petitioner further alleges that she sent an application to the Director, Education (Elementary), Rawalpindi on 15-4-1997 with a request that she may be issued an appointment letter after going through formalities which application was forwarded to respondent No,2 with a direction to explain why the petitioner had not been interviewed in spite of the direction of this Court dated 18-2-1997.
She alleged that as no action on her said application has so far been taken, so she was constrained to file the instant writ petition praying that respondent No,2 be directed to process her application and issue letter of appointment.
3. On receipt of this writ petition comments of respondent No,2 were called wherein it was asserted that according to recruitment policy petitioner had to appear for interview from 19-1-1997 to 21-1- 1997 and objection or appeal had to be submitted before the Chairman, Secondary Board of the concerned division and no such objection or appeal was to be filed before Director, Education (Elementary). It was stated that a merit list was prepared keeping in view the direction issued by this Court and as the petitioner never appeared in the interview so her name could not be entered in the said merit list. It was further asserted that due to imposition of ban on recruitment new merit list could not be prepared, however, it was submitted that if the Court directs the petitioner can be interviewed and if found eligible will be included in the merit list.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner appeared for interview and her name was included in the merit list prepared in the first instance but her name was excluded subsequently on the pretext that it was not in consonance with the directions contained in letter dated 16-1-1997, as the petitioner had qualified her P.T.C. Course from Azad Kashmir. His contention is that as the condition imposed in order dated 16-1-1997 had been suspended vide order dated 18-2-1997 so her name should have been included in the list of candidates called for interview and test, that she had been applying to respondent No,2 for the inclusion of her name for interview but on one pretext or the other her name was not included.
6. Conversely these contentions stand repudiated by the learned A.A.-G., who submits that as per order dated 18-2-1997, final merit list was to be prepared within 10 days of the said order, that petitioner did not apply during the said period, as such her name could not be included. He relied upon the comments and submitted that by the due date only five vacancies were available as such candidates who appeared for test and interview were selected for the said vacancies and were consequently issued appointment letter.
7. Instant Constitutional petition has been filed for issuing a direction to respondent No,2 for calling the petitioner for interview in respect of P.T.C. posts. There is no doubt that petitioner applied for the said post and her name was not included as she had qualified P.T.C. course from Sensah College, Azad Kashmir and such candidates were not to be considered for the appointment vide order dated 16-1-1997 issued by respondent No, I . This order dated 16-1-1997 was suspended by this Court vide order dated 18-2-1997. A perusal of order suspending the operation of letter dated 16-1-1997 clearly shows that respondent No,2 was directed to consider all such candidates for appointment on merit within 10 days. It was the duty of the petitioner to approach respondent No,2 within a period of 10 days from 18-2-1997. However, the record shows that she did not move any application with respondent No,2. On the other hand, she moved an application with Director. Education (Elementary), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi for interview on 15-4-1997. The target date given for the appointment of such candidates vide order dated 18-2-1997 was to expire on 28-2-1997. The application of the petitioner having been moved on 15-4-1997 could not be considered by respondent No,2 for the purpose of test and interview. This being the factual position, no illegality has been committed by respondent No,2 in declining the request of petitioner.
8. The upshot of above discussion is that there is no force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.