' The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Senior Math and Science Teacher in the Government High School, Handal; Tehsil and District Kasur. As a result of the process of selection the petitioner was placed at Serial No,1 of the merit list with 47 marks. Respondent No,7 was at Serial No,11 with 38 marks, however, in preference to the petitioner, the District Education Coordinator approved appointment of respondent No,7. Accordingly, he was appointed to the said post. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has questioned the said appointment.
2. In the report and parawise comments filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 it is not denied that the petitioner was at Serial No,1 of the merit list. According to them, the said merit list was submitted to the District Education Coordinator, Kasur who approved the appointment of respondent No,7 in accordance with the Government Policy because the petitioner was the resident of Kot Radha Krishan while respondent No,7 was the resident of Union Council, Handal.
3. Initially the District Education Coordinator was not party to this writ petition. He was however, directed to be impleaded as respondent No,8 vide order, dated 5-10-2000. Respondents Nos.7 and 8 were also put to notice for special costs.
4. In the parawise comments submitted by the District Education Coordinator it has been stated that respondent No,7 was preferred for administrative reasons because he was living closest to the school where the appointment has been made, in accordance with the eligibility criteria.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by appointing respondent No,7 to the post in question, the process of selection was contemptuously undone and 'the merit of the petitioner was brushed aside on wholly unsustainable premises. He submits that the appointment in question was made under the Action Plan of the Government and the eligibility criteria as given therein was misinterpreted and misapplied.
6. On the other hand, the District Education Officer (Secondary) Lahore, who appeared on behalf of respondent No,8 (because he stands transferred from Kasur to Lahore) submits that in accordance with the Action Plan preference was given to respondent No,7. It is further contended that this appointment was on contract for a period up to 31-5-2001 and, therefore, no interference is called for. The learned counsel for respondent No,7 has also reiterated the same contention and submits that it is in the interest of the students that a person residing nearest to the school is appointed so that he is available to the students even beyond the school hours. He further contended that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Science and Math Teacher but .Resigned on 31-12-2000 on account of some domestic problems. On this basis it was contended that the petitioner could not lay his claim on two posts. Explaining this, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he was a candidate for both the posts i,e, the Science and Math Teacher (SMT) and Senior Science and Math Teacher (SSMT) and his claim to be appointed to the post of Senior Science and Math Teacher could not be turned down on the ground that he had accepted the post of Science and Math Teacher.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the Special Cabinet meeting held on 2-3-2000 it was decided to engage 1417 Secondary School Teachers and 1461 Elementary School Teachers on contract for one academic year commencing 1st of September, 2000. The recruitment was to be made under the Action Plan according to which the ESTs were redesignated and Science and Math Teacher (SMT) and the SSTs were redesigned as Senior Science and Math Teacher (SSMT). These posts were sanctioned vide notification dated 24- 4-2000. The eligibility criteria given in the Action Plan is as follows:- "SMTs ' First preference will be given to candidates belonging to/residing within the Tehsil. If not available within Tehsil, then outside Tehsil. In no case the candidate should belong to/reside outside the Division.
' SSMTs ' First preference will be given to candidates belonging to/residing within the Tehsil. If not available within Tehsil, then outside Tehsil. In no case the candidate should belong to/reside outside the District."
' This Action Plan also provides for preparation of merit list and the criteria to determine merit has also been spelt out. It further provides that if two candidates obtain equal marks the candidate, older in age, would be given preference. The selection was to be made by the Head Teacher and the District Education Coordinator shall approve the merit list under the caption "Interview" it is provided as follows:-- "Interview ' The appointment shall be clearly on merit. There will be no marks for interview. However, the interviews would be held by the Head Teachers and other members of the School Council. Besides Head Teachers there would be at least three members to conduct the interviews."
' It is interesting to note that on the one hand it is provided that there will be no marks for the interview but simultaneously it is provided that interview will be held by the Head Teachers and other members of the School Council and that the merit list will be prepared by the School Council.
Reading the Action Plan as a whle no doubt can be entertained that appointments of the SSMTs and the SMTs were intended to be made strictly on merit.
8. In this case the basis to work out of merit was the academic qualifications of the candidates. The petitioner was at Serial No,1 of the merit list having secured 1st Division in Matric, 1st Division in F.Sc and 2nd Division in BS.Ed. Respondent No,7, the selectee, was at Serial No,11 with 2nd Division in Matric, 2nd Division in F.Sc. And 3rd in B.Sc. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was far ahead in merit than respondent No,7. The sole justification to prefer respondent No,7 was that he was living nearer to the school than the petitioner. This was a wholly irrelevant consideration because according to the eligibility criteria the first preference is to be given to the candidates belonging to the Tehsil and admittedly both the petitioner and respondent No,7 resides within the Tehsil.
9. It may also be noted that when it comes to preferring one candidate to another, the situation could only arise if the two competing candidates have equal merit. According to the Action Plan, even in that case the older in age is to be preferred. The District Education Coordinator, by selecting respondent No,7 has, in fact, incorporated a consideration in the Action Plan which is wholly alien. If it is accepted, it will reduce the entire process of selection to a clap-trap and there would not be any need to undertake the process of selection to determine the merit of the competing candidates. This could never be the intention of the Action Plan in which it has been emphasized that the appointment shall be clearly on merit.
10. For what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed. Selection of respondent No,7 to the post of Senior Science and Math Teacher in the Government High School, Handal, Tehsil and District Kasur is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be appointed to the post in question on the same terms and conditions on which respondent No,7 was appointed.
11. Respondents Nos.7 and 8 were put to notice for special costs. However, in view of the explanation of respondent No,8 that it happened due to the ambiguity in the policy, notice for special costs is discharged.