2015 P L C (C.S.) 788
[Balochistan High Court]
Qazi Faez Isa, C.J. and Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, J
NAVEED AHMED
versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, through
Secretary and 4 others
Constitutional Petition No.859 of 2012, decided on 25th August, 2014.
Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 199---Constitutional petition ---Civil service ---Advertisement for the posts of teaching
cadre in the Education Department ---Petitioner possessed B.Ed. which was considered as
professional qualification and respondents possessed PTC only ---Petitioner could not be
penalized for his higher professional qualification and respondents could not be facilitated on the
basis of their PTC qualification ---Only intermediate certificate was req uired for admission in
PTC but for admission in B.Ed. degree Bachelor degree was mandatory ---Petitioner was a better
qualified person having higher professional qualification as compared to the contesting
respondents ---B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner was issued on 11- 4-2012 but the year of
examination was 2010 and on the cut date petitioner had qualification of B.Ed.---Petitioner
should have been placed higher on merit list as he had secured higher qualification than the
contesting respondents ---Pet itioner had successfully made out his case and he deserved to be
appointed---Authorities were directed by High Court to rectify the errors in the merit list and
issue appointment order to the petitioner without any further loss of time ---Constitutional
petition was disposed of accordingly.
Petitioner in person.
Muhammad Saleem Baloch, Addl. A.- G. for official Respondents.
Respondents Nos.4 and 5 in Person.
Date of hearing: 24th April, 2014.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J. --- The petitioner Naveed Ahmed
has assailed the appointment of Zubair Ahmed and Raqeebullah, respectively the respondents
Nos.4 and 5, against the post of Junior Vernacular Teacher ("JVT") in B -9 made by the Director
of Education (Schools) Government of Balochistan (respondent No.2).
2. The petitioner contended that vide advertisement dated 4- 12-2011 published in the Daily
"Jang" Quetta applications were invited for various posts of teaching cadre in the Education
Department. The said posts were stipulated to be filled on basis of weightage formula at village
and Union Council level. The local/domicile candidates, who are also permanent residents of
relevant village, were entitled to submit the applications. In case of non -availability of the
candidates from the relevant village, the candidates from the relevant Union Council were to be
preferred. The following procedure was stipulated for the determination of merit of the intended
candidates:
The petitioner further contended that appointment of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 is in violation
of principles of natural justice and merit as he possesses higher qualification than the said
respondents. He further added that though the merit list was compiled wrongly by the official
respondents and respondent No.4 viz . Zubair Ahmed was awarded 51.74% marks and was placed
at serial No.4 of the merit list but the respondent No.5, was placed at serial No.17 by securing
46.03% marks, and the petitioner's name appeared at serial No.9 by securing 49.16% marks but
instead of petitioners, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 were appointed. He contended that inspite of
compiling wrong merit list, still the petitioner secured higher percentage than respondent No.5.
He further added that respondent No.5 is only intermediate with Primary T eaching Certificate
("PTC") and respondent No.4 viz. Zubair Ahmed possesses Bachelor's Degree with PTC, while
he has a Master's Degree in International Relations, as well as, a Bachelor's Degree in Education
(B.Ed.). He finally urged that the appointments of respondents Nos.4 and 5 be declared against
the norms of natural justice and principles of merit and the official respondents be directed to
appoint him according to the merit list.
3. In response to court's notice the respondents appeared and the off icial respondents Nos.1,
2 and 3 filed joint para -wise comments and categorically denied the allegations levelled against
them. He referred to the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner and stated that the same was obtained on
11-4-2012 whereas the last date for s ubmission of application was 27- 12-2011. The learned
Additional Advocate -General contended that the appointments were made according to merit list,
which was complied on basis of weightage formula, therefore, the petitioner has no case, which,
requires int erference by this court.
4. The respondents Nos.4 and 5 also filed their replies, wherein respondent No.4 contended
that he was placed at serial No.4 of the merit list, therefore, was rightly appointed and if the
merit list would have been compiled accor ding to the contention of the petitioner then he still
would have been appointed being placed at serial No.14 out of total eighteen posts. The
respondent No.5 in his reply contended that the appointment was made on the basis of F.A.
(Intermediate), therefo re, his appointment was according to the requisite qualification and merit.
However, both the private respondents failed to categorically deny the petitioner's contention.
5. We have heard the respective parties, the learned Additional Advocate -General and have
also perused the record. The perusal of referred to advertisement reveals that for the post of JVT,
the minimum qualification F.A./FSc. (Intermediate) with PTC was stipulated. In referred to
advertisement it was further stipulated that 80% marks will be allocated for the required
educational qualification i.e. Intermediate (F.A./F.Sc.), 10% marks for possessing the
professional qualification and 10% additional marks were for higher educational qualification.
The relevant entries of merit list in res pect of petitioner and the contesting respondents, on basis
whereof the appointments were made as under: ---
LIST OF CANDIDATES APPLIED FOR THE POST
OF J.V.T. (MALE) DISTRICT QUETTA
S.
No. Roll
No. Names Minimum required
Qualification Professional Qualification
Academic Weight -age
80% Weight -age 10%
4 454 Zubair
Ahmed 453/800=56.62%
80%=45.30% 902/1400=64.43%
10%=6.44
10 89 Naveed
Ahmed 503/1100=45.73%
80%=36.58 598/900=66.44%
10%=6.64
17 08 Raqeeb
Ullah 555/1100=50.45%
80%=40.36 795/1400=56.79%
10%=5.67
Higher Educational Qualification Total Percentage
Weight -age 10%
000 51.74
475/800=59.38% 10%=5.94% 49.16
000 46.03
6. The respondent No.5 viz Raqeeb Ullah secured 46.03% marks, which includes 40.36%
marks for minimum qualification i.e. Intermediate and 5.67% marks for professional
qualification i.e. PTC, whereas he has no higher qualification. Respondent No.4's total
percentage is 51.74 which includes 45.30% marks for minimum required qualification
(calculated on basis of Bachelors degree instead of Intermediate certificate) and 6.44% marks for
professional qualification i.e. PTC. Meaning thereby, that his Bachelor's degree was considered
as his minimu m educational qualification, which was ought to be considered on basis of
Intermediate qualification as per the stipulation contained in the advertisement. The petitioner's
total marks are 49.16%, which includes 45.73% marks for minimum qualification (Inte rmediate),
6.64% marks for professional qualification (B.Ed.) and 5.94% marks for higher qualification i.e.
Bachelor's degree (B.A.).
The merit list shows that respondent No.4's merit was calculated on basis of Bachelor's
Degree, which was considered hi s minimum qualification, rather than calculating the same on
basis of Intermediate certificate, therefore, the column of his higher educational qualification is
showed "nil" in the merit list. According to the stipulated formula 80% marks were allocated to
the minimum qualification i.e. F.A./F.Sc. (Intermediate). In order to better understand the
controversy, we have recalculated the percentage of the petitioner and the contesting respondents
and up to their extent only recompiled the merit list, which is a s follows: ---
S.
No. Roll
No. Names Minimum required
Qualification F.A./FSc. Professional Qualification
Academic Weight -age
80% Weight -age 10%
10 89 Naveed
Ahmed 503/1100=45.73%
80%=36.58% 584/1000=58.4%
10%=5.84
4 454 Zubair
Ahmed 479/1100=46.55%
80%=34.84% 902/1400=64.43%
10%=6.44
17 08 Raqeeb
Ullah 555/1100=50.45%
80%=40.36 795/1400=56.79%
10%=5.67
Higher Educational Qualification Total Percentage
Weight -age 10%
475/800=59.38% 10%=5.94% 48.36%
453/800=56.62% 10%=5.66% 46.94%
000 46.03%
The petitioner possesses B.Ed. degree, therefore, in his case the B.Ed. degree shall be
considered as his professional qualification. The petitioner secured 584 marks out of total 1000
marks in B.Ed. but the respondents Nos.4 and 5 possess PTC only, ther efore, their percentage in
professional qualification shall be calculated on basis of marks obtained in PTC, which entails
total 1400 marks. Thus, the petitioner cannot be penalized for his higher professional
qualification and respondents Nos.4 and 5 cannot be facilitated on basis of their PTC certificate.
It is obvious that for admission in PTC course only intermediate certificate is required, but for
admission in B.Ed. degree the Bachelor's degree is mandatory. Therefore, the petitioner is a
better quali fied person having higher professional qualification as compared to the contesting
respondents Nos.4 and 5, who possess only PTC in terms of professional qualification, which by
all means is lesser than B.Ed. degree.
As far as the parawise comments filed by the official respondents is concerned, the same
overlook the fact that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner though states that it was issued
on 11- 4-2012 but the year of examination is 2010, as such, on the cut date the petitioner had the
quali fication of B.Ed. degree.
Had the weightage formula been rightly applied the petitioner would have secured
48.36% marks, while the respondents Nos.4 and 5 would have secured 46.94% marks and
46.03% marks respectively. Therefore, the petitioner should have been placed higher on merit
list as he had secured higher marks than the contesting respondents.
In view of above discussion we are of the considered view that the petitioner has
successfully made out his case and he deserved to be appointed as he had obtained higher marks
than the contesting respondents as per the prescribed weightage formula.
In consequence whereof the official respondents are directed to rectify the errors in the
merit list as mentioned hereinabove and thereafter, issue the ap pointment order of the petitioner
against the post of junior Vernacular Teacher (JVT, B -9) in the Union Council Panjpai, District
Quetta without any further loss of time.
AG/18/Bal Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.