' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioenr seeks leave to appeal against Lahore High Court Judgment dated 17-3-1999 dismissing his I.C.A. Arising out of dismissal order passed in Writ Petition No.24556 of 1998.
2. Petitioner, through Constitutional petition, challenged the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of P.T.C. Teacher in preference to him against the quota reserved for teachers' sons. It was the case of the petitioner that he had secured higher marks in the selection, therefore, he was entitled to appointment but the official respondents had wrongly selected respondent No.4. In the parawise comments, it was stated by the respondent-department that the petitioner had secured 45 marks whereas respondent No.4 had secured 54 marks. Petitioner claimed 10 additional marks on account of obtaining Diploma in Commerce but it was pointed out by the respondents that this Diploma was awarded to the petitioner, much after the last date fixed for filing applications for the posts in question. Petition was, thus, dismissed in limine. The decision was impugned in I.C.A. Before a Division Bench of the High Court but without any success, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the photocopy of a Diploma in Commerce awarded to the petitioner, at page 32 of the Paper Book tending to show that the petitioner had passed this examination held in June, 1988 and was placed in 'D' Grade but the Diploma had been issued on 3rd January, 1993. It was perhaps the date of issue of the diploma, which created problem for the petitioner before the High Court where he could not explain to the Court that in fact he had acquired the said qualification much prior to the last date for applications.
4. Be that as it may, according to the result sheet, as a result of selection of P.T.C. Teachers, we find that apart from respondent-Muhammad !A Saleem. Shahid Hussain and Abdul Malik were also appointed as P.T.C. Teachers against the quota reserved for teachers' sons. We failed to understand the logic behind selective approach and pick and choose made by the petitioner, inasmuch as, he has challenged the appointment of Muhammad saleem whereas he did not question the appointment of two other teachers namely Shahid Hussain and Abdul Malik. He has submitted, a chart of marks obtained by himself, Muhammad Saleem and Shahid Hussain in the memo. Of petition, reflecting that Muhammad Saleem had secured 54 marks whereas Shahid Hussain secured 50 marks. If the petitioner did not challenge the selection of Shahid Hussain, who, on his own showing, secured lesser marks than Muhammad Saleem, his petition impugning the selection and appointment of Muhammad Saleem alone would be wholly incompetent. Learned counsel, when called upon to explain the discrepancy, found him helpless, as the memo. Of petition was drafted by another counsel.
5. There is an other aspect of the case. In the memo. Of petition Muhammad Saleem, was arrayed as respondent No.4 like the memo. Of writ petition before the High Court but the learned counsel, who presented the memo. Of petition in the office, under her own signature or signature of AOR deleted the name of Muhammad Saleem arrayed as respondent No.4. We have verified from the Court file as well which fully supports our observations. We are in no manner of doubt that no adverse order can be passed against Muhammad Salem without impleading him as party to the proceedings. However, he has been vigilant enough to pursue the proceedings and defend his cause as he had filed caveat in the Office and moved an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C.
For impleadment as respondent. Since his AOR failed to submit the Paper Books, office did not find it fit and proper to allot any C.M. Number (number allotted today in Court) or to place it before the Court. For the facts and reasons discussed above, this petition is without any substance and accordingly dismissed.