' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ,--J.---Vide advertisement (Annexure A to the writ petition) the respondent No,2 invited applications, inter alia, for the appointment to the post of Professor (female) in Punjab Education Department on all Punjab basis. One such post was relevant to subject of Physics. This advertisement was published on 24-4-1998. According to the said notice the qualifications prescribed were Ph.D. In the relevant subject (i,e, Physics) with 12 years graudate/post-graudate teaching/research experience in the relevant field in a National or International Organization. Plus 6 research publications as a principal author (1st author) in a standard journal recognised by the University Grant Commission or University having research facility. A total numbers of three candidates including the appellant and respondent No,4 filed applications. Whereas the application of the said 3rd candidate was rejected by respondent No,2, the appellant and respondent No,4 got a call for interview. The appellant, in the first instance protested against the decision of the respondent No,2 to call respondent No,4 for interview as according to her she was not eligible and then proceeded to file Writ Petition No, 20379 of 1998 in this Court when she learnt about the decision of respondent No,2 whereby respondent No,4 had been recommended to be appointed to the said post. In the writ petition she stated that respondent No,4 had been her class- fellow and is a friend and that she is aware about work of respondent No,.4. It was further stated that although respondent No,4 was not willing to apply for the post she was forced to do so by her husband who allegedly had managed to get her appointed to the said post. The precise objection raised by the appellant to the eligibility of respondent No,4 was that she was working as Research Scholar in the Applied Chemistry Centre of Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories and her work has to relevance with Physics and that the papers filed by the respondent No,4 related to Chemistry and BioChemistry and not to the subject of Physics which was prescribed condition. In its written statement the respondent No,2 explained that Physics is a very wide subject and that one of its advance area in Bio-Physics which is research field of respondent No,4. It was further stated that Selection Board comprised two very senior Professors one of whom was the head of Physics Department Government College Lahore, three members of the Commission and representative of the concerned Department who found the papers to be relevant and admissible and accordingly respondent No,4 was interviewed and having been found ahead of the appellant was recommended. Respondent No,4 in her written statement explained that she did her M.Sc. In Physics from the Punjab University in 1978 and Ph.D. In Physics from the University of Nottingham U.K. In 1985 and post doctorate from Japan in 1996; that her area of specialization is Molecular Bio-Physics. She further stated that she is working as Principal Scientific Officer in Grade-19 in the said Research Laboratories in the said field. Thereafter, she had explained the nature of her work and qualifications. The appellant in her turn filed rejoinder to both the written statements controverting the pleas so taken therein. The case was heard by a learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court on 1-2-1998 and the writ petition was dismissed.
2. Mr. Shakeel-ur-Rehman Khan, learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the records of respondent-Commission, which he was allowed to examine by this Court, argues that the evaluator, namely, Dr. M.Z. Butt had reported that respondent No,4 is working in Applied Chemistry Research Centre of the said Laboratory; that she is principal author of 12 research papers published in standard journal but these Articles dealt with structure-function relationship of proteins, cholestoral etc. According to the expert the subject-matter of the paper is relatable to Physical Chemistry/Biology rather than Physics and nothing to do with Physics being taught in Colleges and Universities and as such she is not a suitable candidate. According to the learned counsel this being the report of the expert who had found the papers of the respondent No,4 not to be in order was sufficient to declare the respondent No,4 to be ineligible for the job. Proceeding further on the said premises learned counsel states that the Commission has proceeded to exercise discretion which according to the learned counsel, is unstructured and is unregulated and such a course of action is not to be permissible in view of the law laid down in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P.
Through Secretary and 3 others v. Mejee Flour and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997 SCMR 1804). In the same breath refers to police decision No,14 particularly paras.11-14 thereof (Annexure M to one of the rejoinder) to urge that the said provisions are mandatory and violation thereof by the Commission renders the decision void. Relies in this behalf upon the case of Jamshed Ahmad Khan v. S.D.M/A.0 (PLD 1987 SC 213). Also complains that the Commission proceeds in rather a secretive manner as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of. Musa Wazir and others v. N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission (1993 SCMR 1124) Refers to the case Dr. Zia Suleman Farooqi v. Punjab Public Service Commission and others (PLD 1994 Lahore 55) and Abdul Ghaffar v.
Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary (PU 1986 SC (AJK) 95, to urge that the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking quashment of the decision of the respondent- Commission was competent.
3. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, learned counsel for respondent Commission on the other hand argues with reference to the same record that the said Mr. M.Z. Butt was himself on the penal constituted to interview the two candidates and agreed with the other members when they found the papers to be in order, relevant and admissible. All the members then evaluated two candidates and it was respondent No,4 who was found to be better as a result of the said exercise. Learned counsel relies on the case of Dr. Habibur Rehman v. The West Pakistan Public Service Commission, Lahore and others (PLD 1973 SC 144) and Maqbool Ahmad Maqbool v. The Province of Punjab and 10 others (1971 SCMR 727) to urge that the writ petition was not competent and has been rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
4. The respondent No,4 with reference to her written statement states that the papers submitted by her were very much within domain of Physics and that the evaluator must having mixed up. Bio- Physics with Bio-Chemistry or Biology.
5. We have gone through the records of the writ petition as well as records of the Commission that were made available for examination by the learned counsel for Commission today. As we have noted above there is no denial that the respondent No,4 had throughout been student of Physics.
She did graduation and post-graduation in Physics as well as doctorate and post-doctorate in Physics. We also find a note on the said evaluation report qua the papers of respondent No,4 that the papers have been found to be relevant and admissible and that the candidate will be interviewed. This note is dated 26-9-1998. It is an admitted fact that interview was conducted on 28-9-1998 and this is apparent on the mark sheets of the two candidates. We do find that respondent No,4 got more marks then the appellant upon an examination of the said mark sheets.
Now learned counsel contends that these mark sheets are signed only by Presiding Member. We are afraid the contention is misconceived. Apart from the fact that we find other signatures/initials on the mark sheets, though not decipherable, the pro forma attached to be said mark sheets bearing the same date not only contains the names of the members, departmental representative and the subjects specialists but also the signatures of all the six persons including said learned evaluator Dr. M. Zakria Butt. In the absence of any allegation' or material to the contrary we have to assume that the said specialist/experts did argue with his 'fellow members when they found the paper to be in order and for valid reasons.
6. Mr. Shakeel-ur-Rehman, learned counsel then contends that one of members of the Commission who was coopted as a subject specialist was not even a Ph.D. According to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, learned counsel the said learned member is a former V.C. Of Islamia University Bahawalpur and his subject had been Physics. To our mind nothing turns on the said contention of the learned counsel inasmuch as the other &puts also concurred in the matter.
7. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel based on the said judgment (1997 SCMR 1804) being relied upon by him, we do not find this to be a matter of exercise of discretion. The mark sheet showed the application of mind by all the six members of the Board and in the absence of any factual foundation being laid down in the writ petition, we are not prepared to attribute any sinister intention to the said members of the Commission. As to the said judgments in the cases of PLD 1994 Lahore 55 and PLJ 1986 AJK SC 95, we find that said cases proceed on absolutely different factual background.
8. Ultimately we have to agree with the learned Single Judge in Chamber when he says that having been unable to find any deliberate and flagrant violation of Rules or Instructions, this Court would be entering into a prohibited domain, in making attempt to substitute its judgment for one made by said members whose task it was to select and recommend a candidate for appointment to the said post. This I.C.A. Is accordingly dismissed.
I.C.A. Dismissed.