' I intend to dispose of Writ Petition No,12044 of 2001 titled "Asif Aziz v. District and Sessions Judge and others " and Writ Petition No, 11389 of 2001 titled "Jamil Ahmad Bajwa etc. v. District and Sessions Judge etc.," as both the writ petitions pertain to common questions of law and facts.
2. In Writ Petition No, 12044 of 2001 it is prayed that the minutes of the meeting dated 31-5-2001 to the extent of the petitioner and appointment order of respondent No,4 dated 31-5-2001 may be set aside and respondents Nos.1 to 3 may be directed to declare the result of written test of the petitioner accordingly and to provide him a fair chance of competition in the typing test to consider the case of recruitment for the post of junior clerk afresh. It is further prayed that the inquiry may be conducted in respect of unlawful appointment of respondent No,6 as Junior Clerk on the recommendation of respondent No,5. It is further prayed that the impugned appointment order dated 31-5-2001 and that of order dated 26-2-2001 may also be set aside.
3. While in Writ Petition No, 11389 of 2001 the Minutes of Meeting dated 31-5-2001 have been challenged and with the same prayer for affording an opportunity to the petitioner and for taking fresh typing test from them appointment order dated 8-6-2001 of respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Has also been challenged.
4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 advertised two posts of Junior Clerks to be filled up on merit against the quota reserved for the children of Government servants in BS-1 to BS- 5, The advertisement was published on 22-5-2001 in the daily "Wafaq". The basic qualification for the post of Junior Clerk has been prescribed, as Matric with typing speed of at least 30 words per minute and the applications were to be submitted to the office of respondent No,1 up to 24-5-2001.
The petitioner claims that he was qualified and applied for the same. The Departmental Selection Committee headed by respondent No,1 instead of allocating 80 per cent. Marks as per the recruitment policy for academic qualification and 20 marks for interview has adopted different method for appointment and fixed 30 marks for academic qualification and 10 marks for interview.
The petitioner appeared in the test of 31-5-2001 and claims that he secured 17 marks out of 30 marks and his position, was 4th but he was not allowed to participate in the typing test on the ground that the petitioner had copied the written test of another candidate, namely, Khalid Mahmood hence the seat reserved for the quota was transferred to the posts of Junior Clerks to be filled up on open merit as no candidate qualified out of the said quota. The Departmental Selection Committee on 31-5-2001 prepared the minutes and five candidates against three available posts of Junior Clerk were selected, two posts of Junior Clerks were filled one open merit and one post of Junior Clerk reserved under quota for the children of present and ex-employees of the children of department transferred to the posts of open merit. Respondent No,4 was appointed on the seat reserved for the quota by respondent No,1 vide his order dated 31-5-2001.
5. In Writ Petition No, 11389 of 2001 two posts of Junior Clerks on open merit and one post of Junior Clerk out of the quota of ex-employees through the abovesaid advertisement has been challenged. Petitioners claim that they are F.A. In both the writ petitions the selection has been challenged on various grounds.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been given discriminatory treatment and they were provided unserviseable typewriters for the purpose of their typing test and in spite of their repeated demands neither the said typewriters were replaced with some other machines in working condition nor were they allowed to take typing test on the availability of proper typewriters after the termination of the above said typing test. It is further contended that fresh recruitment has not been made in accordance with law and inconformity with the existing, recruitment policy duly approved by the Government and due weightage has not been given to the academic qualifications of the candidates. It is further contended that petitioner No,2 in Writ Petition No, 11389 of 2001 was already working as Junior Clerk to the entire satisfaction of respondent No,1 but he has not been selected in spite of his satisfactory performance during the work he has done with respondent No, 1 . He further contends that the recruitment has been made in an unlawful and illegal manner and is against the principles of natural justice which may be set aside.
7. In Writ Petition No, 12044 of 2001 the same grounds have been taken except one new ground that respondent No,5 as Senior Civil Judge' was the Member of the Selection Committee; he manoeuvred the appointment of respondent No,6 who is his maternal nephew and it is further contended that in spite of the fact that he was not resident of District Narowal, his forged domicile was got prepared by respondent No,5 by misusing his authority. The whole appointment procedure has not been made in a crystal clear manner and has been made in order to accommodate jobs to the favourite candidates and even to their relatives by the Selection Committee.
8, Comments were called for from respondent No,5, learned Senior Civil Judge and the learned District Judge, respondent No,
1. They have denied the allegations levelled in those writ petitions and have categorically stated that the appointments have been made on merits. Respondent No,1 has also denied the allegations in these petitions and has stated that the appointment has been made on merits and the petitioner in Writ Petition No,12044 of 2001 has been alleged was caught red-handed copying the answer-sheet from the answer-sheet of one Khalid Mahmood candidate.
The learned District Judge has also stated that he compared the copies of both candidates and found that the petitioner in Writ Petition No, 12044 of 2001 was copying and the allegation was correct. On the other hand Khalid Mahmood according to the learned District and Sessions Judge alleged that the present petitioner forcibly snatched his answer-sheet to copy on which the writ petitioner kept mum. Khalid Mahmood was allowed to sit in the copying test while the present petitioner was debarred for further proceedings. It has also further been stated that the vacancy reserved for the specified quota for, which the petitioner applied was carried on for next recruitment as there remained no suittable candidate for the specified quota and such practice to fill up the specified quota seat by open merits is duly warranted by law and the quota has not been exhausted of the writ petitioner.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with this petition. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not borne out from the record and the documents, attached with this petition. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Narowal and the learned Senior Civil Judge has denied the allegations levelled in those petitions and have taken the stand that the appointment has been made on merits after considering all the material facts. The petitioner in Writ Petition No, 12044 of 2001 was found copying and was caught red-handed and he was produced alongwith Khalid Mahmood and other candidates before the learned District and Sessions Judge on which Khalid Mahmood has levelled allegations against the petitioner that he has snatched the copy from him and was copying the same on which the petitioner kept mum and he was not allowed to take part in the examination any more. The conduct of the petitioner in Writ Petition No, 12044 of 2001 is sufficient to dismiss his writ petition as discretionary powers cannot be exercised in favour of such type of candidate who had tried to deceive the Selection Committee during the test and is guilty of malpractice, hence this petition straightaway is dismissed.
10. As far as the other Writ Petition No, 13076 of 2001 is concerned. In this writ petition the allegation has been levelled that the Type Machines, supplied to the petitioners were out of order. On the other hand the selected candidates were provided good machines. This fact is not supported by any documentary evidence and these are factual controversies which cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or improbability in the selection by the respondents except the selection of respondent No,6 in Writ Petition No, 12044 of 2001 who is maternal nephew of respondent No,5 but the close relative of the members of the Selection Committee cannot be debarred from taking part in the selection. The other allegations levelled are not supported by the evidence on the record.
11. Resultantly both the writ petitions have no merit and are dismissed with no order as to costs.