1999 PLP 1120 (MLD)

MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.

Miss Nusrat Yasmeen, Asif Hameed Qureshi and Muhammad Azam Khan (Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates on contract basis) appeared in the Examination of the Public Service Commission N.-W.F.P., Peshawar for the posts of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate and were declared failed in the written test. Miss Nusrat Yasmeen, petitioner in W.P. No.458 of 1998, Asif Hameed Qureshi, petitioner in W.P. No 330 of 1998, and Muhammad Azam Khan petitioner in W.P. No.354 of 1998 have questioned their failure by seeking directions of this Court to the respondents for re checking the English papers of the petitioners of the competitive examination for the post of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate held on 23-10-1997 at Peshawar and declaring the petitioners successful in the written examination. This single judgment in W.P. No.458 of 1998 will dispose of the other two W.P. No.330 of 1998 and 354 of 1998 as the questions for determination in all the three writ petitions are one and the same.

2. The circumstances which compelled the petitioners to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in brief are that the petitioners were appointed as Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate on contract basis as a result of the Competitive oral and written examination conducted by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar; that after about 2-1/2 years the Public Service Commission advertised the posts and in response to the same the petitioners appeared in. the said examination, the result of which was announced on 7-3-1998 and the petitioners names were missing from the list of those candidates who had been declared successful; that the petitioners were later on issued the Detailed Mark Certificates in which the petitioners have been shown failed in English Paper; that the petitioners applied to the N.-W.F.P., Public Service Commission for re checking which was done and the petitioners were informed in writing that on rechecking it was found that. there was no discrepancy in the marking of papers already awarded by the examiner; and that the respondents have failed to allow the petitioners the visual inspection of English paper which was their fundamental right and this action is also against the principle laid down in PLD 1992 Supreme Court-263.

3. In response to the directions of this Court dated 26-5-1998, respondents Nos.2 and 3 submitted parawise comments to the writ petitions and in the comments it has been stated that the Commission checked the English Papers of the petitioners and did not find any discrepancy as alleged by the petitioners in spite of the fact that there is no law which could permit re-checking of the papers already assessed by the competent and independent examiner, as once re-checking of the papers is allowed then the Commission will not be able to finalize any examination. The respondents have also asserted that visual inspection of the papers is not permissible in any law of the Commission, and therefore, the request of the petitioners was not acceded to.

4. Keeping in view the principle laid down in PLD 1992 SC 263, the respondents were directed to produce the disputed answer books of the petitioners for their visual inspection. On production of the same we also perused the same and found that no answer already attempted by the petitioners has remained either unmarked or there is any difference in the total. The answer books were thereafter shown to the petitioners/counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.458 of 1998 and W.P. No.330 of 1998 and they admitted that these are the answer books which they had filled-in in the examination with their own handwriting. At this stage the petitioners then took the plea that they have correctly attempted the questions but some portion of their answers have not been properly appreciated by the examiner.

5. In our view, the said answer books have twice been checked once by the examiner and then by the Commission and at both- the occasions the assessment was against the petitioners. Hence, in absence of any good ground or any patent/established mala fide on part of the examiner, we do not deem it proper to further proceed with the matter in the light of the principles laid down in PLD 1992 SC

263. Moreover, in absence of any provision for re-appraisal/re valuation the petitioner's case further becomes weakened to make out justification for interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, the fact that the petitioners have secured excellent marks in other papers of the said examination or that they have at their credit a brilliant academic record, the same cannot legally be made a criterion for re-evaluation of the papers in question.

6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith Civil Miscellaneous. A.A./M-174/P Petition dismissed