KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J. - Petitioner was a candidate to one of the five posts of District Sports Organization in Basic Pay Scale I6 in the Directorate of Sports Punjab, Education Department, Lahore. His application was turned down by respondent-Commission due to shortlisting. The petitioner questioned the validity of process of shortlisting on the ground that it was not transparent and the affected party is kept in constant guess as to what criteria has been adopted for throwing him out. The petition was admitted to fulldress hearing on 17.4.1998 to consider the question as to whether the exercise of shortlisting by respondent- Commission was legal and fair.
As an interim measure the petitioner was also directed to be interviewed and the Commission was directed to recommend only four persons and recommendation for the 5th post will be withheld.
The case was directed to be fixed for final hearing on 25.6.1998.
2. In today's hearing, it was disclosed that the result of the interviews etc. Has been tabulated.
According to which the petitioner stands at No. 24 of the merit list. It was also disclosed that four names of the persons appearing at serials Nos. 1 to 4 have been recommended for appointment, while the fifth recommendation has been withheld in deference to the order of this Court. In view of this disclosure, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show as to whether the question noted in the order of admission, need be decided since the petitioner has not been able to win recommendation on merit and the question is purely academic now. Learned counsel agreed that the question would have been live only had the petitioner succeeded on merits. However he insisted that Members of the Commission were biased against the petitioner due to his filing of the writ petition and as such they have not prepared the merit list properly, at least to the extent of the petitioner. He suggested that the individual marks of each Member be looked into the determine the correctness of his assertion.
3. In view of the fact that petitioner has not been able to win recommendation on merits, this petition seems to have become irrelevant. Although there does not seem to be any substance in the submission of the learned counsel that this Court should delve deep to determine the validity of the merit, I still perused the original tile and found that the submission of bias can hardly be said to be substantiated from the record. The determination of merit is the function of-the Commission and unless it is a case or rare exception, it would not be proper for this Court to substitute its on opinion to that of the Commission.
4. For what has been stated above, this petition is disposed of.