Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAZLI AHAD VS Respondent: PROVINCE OF N.-W.F.P.
1999 P L C (C
1999 P L C (C. S.) 201
[Peshawar High Court]
Before Mian Shakirullah Jan and Nasir‑ul‑Mulk, JJ
FAZLI AHAD and another
versus
PROVINCE OF N.‑W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 3 others
Writ Petition No. 641 of 1995, decided on 15th January, 1998.
Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Appointment‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Appointing Authority had made appointments of teachers strictly in accordance with merit including batch‑wise merit formula as given in the relevant notification‑‑Validity‑‑‑Object of notification was to ensure a fair degree of selection, minimise chances of discretion and favouritism, which object was neither arbitrary nor illegal‑‑‑Civil servants who had challenged notification to Constitutional petition, could not prove that policy of Government contained in the notification was in flagrant disregard of any relevant provisions of law‑‑‑High Court in its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction, could not substitute its own opinion for that of Selection Committee/Appointing Authority so long as rules and procedure had been properly followed‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by civil servants was dismissed being not maintainable‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.
Shahzada Shahpur Jan for Petitioners.
Riaz Ahmad Khan, A.A.‑G. for Respondents
Date of hearing: 16th October, 1997
JUDGMENT
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.‑‑‑The writ petitioners have challenged the Notification of appointments dated 23‑5‑1995 issued by respondent No.3 (Director of Education (Secondary), N.‑W.F.P. Peshawar) and have prayed for declaring the same as illegal and void ab initio with directions to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to decide the issue strictly on the basis of merit assigned by the Selection Committee.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that as per Notification dated 6‑12‑1994, appointments on 660 vacant posts of Senior English Teachers were to be made by the Departmental Selection Committee from amongst the in‑service teachers according to the prescribed formula of 70 of the total vacancies on the basis of batchwise/yearwise merit having the prescribed qualifications. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.3, Director of Education, on 23‑5‑1995 issued a Notification of appointment of in‑service teachers of the Department against 70 % quota in total disregard of the batchwise/yearwise merit. The petitioners are also aggrieved of the appointment orders made through open merit having quota of 30% posts and have described such appointments to have been made also on the recommendations of the Ministers including Chief Minister.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on file.
4. Annexure ' A' with the writ petition is a Notification dated 6‑12‑1994, the relevant portion of which reads as under:‑‑
"Provided further that notwithstanding the method of recruitment prescribed above, appointments to 660 posts of Senior English Teachers, lying vacant immediately before the commencement of this rule, shall be made through the Departmental Selection Committee in the following manner:
(a) Seventy per. cent on the basis of batch‑wise/year‑wise merit from amongst the in‑service teachers having the prescribed qualification; and
(b) the remaining thirty per cent on the basis of open merit competition."
Annexure 'B' appended with the writ petition is the impugned Notification dated 23‑5‑1995 of the Director Education (respondent No.3) whereby 83 candidates have been appointed as Senior English Teachers though through batch‑wise merit even without describing therein the year‑wise merit of the candidates. In response to the orders of this Court, the respondents produced certain relevant documents from their record and the same are placed on the file of this writ petition. Annexure 'A' is the list of those candidates of Zone‑II, who had qualified the interview for appointment against S.E.T. posts. Annexure 'B' of the said documents is the merit list of Zone II, whereas Annexure ' C' is the batch‑wise/year‑wise merit list of Zone II. Page 13 of the said documents is a Notification having criteria of selection for promotion/initial recruitments issued by the Government of N.‑W.F.P. in the Services and General Administration Department. Thus, from the documents placed on record, it is evident that the appointing authority has made the appointments strictly in accordance with merit including batch‑wise merit formula.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments raised an objection over the notification of having criteria for selection through promotion/initial recruitments on the ground that it being simple instructions are not having the status of rules and, thus, the criteria adopted by the Department was not warranted by law. It may, however, be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioners has not taken this ground in. his writ petition resulting into deprivation of the respondents to properly answer the question in their written reply. Anyhow, the argument is without any substance. The aim of the notification is to ensure a fair degree of selection, minimise the chances of discretion and favouritism, which aim is neither arbitrary nor illegal and neither the learned counsel for the petitioner could convince us about the fact that the policy of the Government containing in the said notification dated 11‑2‑1987 is in flagrant disregard of any relevant provisions of the service law.
7. We while sitting in our extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot substitute our opinion for that of the Selection Committee so long as the Rules and Procedure has been properly followed. We, therefore, see no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.
H.B.T./35/P Petition dismissed.