2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others Versus P.P.O. and others
| Citation | 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others Versus P.P.O. and others |
| Primary Law | Police Order (22 of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Police Order (22 of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others Versus P.P.O. and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bilal Bashir for Petitioners.
- 4. Learned Additional Advocate-General has defended the impugned standing order on the ground that it is in force for the last 10 years without objection and does not contravene any specific provisions of the Rules. With the assistance of the learned counsel Rules 13.5, 13.6 and 13.7 of Police Rules, 1934 have been read. These visualize the basic level of literacy of candidates for entry into list B-1 promotion course. As such no specific additional requirement is mentioned.
- 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. A basic level of literacy may have sufficed in 1934 entailing a capability to read and write simple sentences. However, that standard cannot be said to remain stagnant over time and new elements of capability and knowledge may be introduced to test of simple level of literacy and therefore, understanding in the present day. Learned Additional Advocate-General has informed that the entry test is multiple choice test which is simple and evaluates aptitude as well as understanding of facts and subjects of common knowledge. The more significant point that he has made is that the said test has been applied successfully for the last 10 years without objection.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 10(2) & 10(3)
Police Rules, 1934, Rr.13.5, 13.6 & 13.7
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioners challenged Standing Order issued under Police Order, 2002 imposing a requirement of 60% marks in entry test for the B-1 course
Contention of petitioner was that said Order was illegal for modifying the applicable provisions of the Police Rules, 1934
Rules 13.5, 13.6 & 13.7 of the Police Rules, 1934 visualized basic level of literacy for candidates for promotion into list of B-1 course and no additional requirement was mentioned
Basic level of literacy could have sufficed in the year 1934 entailing a capability to read and write simple sentences, however that standard could not be said to remain stagnant over the time and new elements of capability and knowledge may be introduced to test simple levels of literacy and understanding in the present days
Entry test in question was a multiple choice test, which was simple and evaluated the aptitude as well as understanding of facts and subjects of knowledge which had been applied successfully for the last ten years without objection
Consistent department practice itself constituted a fair ground to continue said practice, and the reason being the certainty it brought to the administrative policies
Specification of 60% pass marks was of no relevance in the matter however, knowledge that was expected of a candidate was relevant
Objection taken by the petitioner consequently was merely of a formal nature
As long as level of test confined to basic knowledge, the passing marks fixed for eligibility to B-1 course did not infringe the Police Rules, 1934 that were silent on the subject
Impugned Standing Order did not violate the rights of the petitioners
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Zaka-ur-Rehman Awan, Addl. A.-G. along with Muhammad Ashraf, D.S.P. (Legal), SPO Office, Jhang.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
This petition challenges Standing Order 8 of 2001 for a requirement for candidates for B--1 course to obtain 60% marks in the entry list administered by S.P. of the district concerned. Rules 13.5, 13.6 and 13.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, do not impose any such requirement. The Standing Order 8 of 2001 is hence impugned as being without legal authority.
2. For imposing the said requirement of standards of performance of a candidate for his selection to B-1 course the provisions of the Police Order, 2002 ("Order") do not give authority to Inspector-General of Police to modify the Rules. However, Article 10(2) and (3) of the Order gives him powers to issue standing orders and directions for efficient functioning of the police consistent with the provisions of the Order and Rules framed thereunder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by imposing a test the Standing Order 8 of 2001 is illegal for purportedly modifying the applicable provisions of the Police Rules.
4. Learned Additional Advocate-General has defended the impugned standing order on the ground that it is in force for the last 10 years without objection and does not contravene any specific provisions of the Rules. With the assistance of the learned counsel Rules 13.5, 13.6 and 13.7 of Police Rules, 1934 have been read. These visualize the basic level of literacy of candidates for entry into list B-1 promotion course. As such no specific additional requirement is mentioned.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. A basic level of literacy may have sufficed in 1934 entailing a capability to read and write simple sentences. However, that standard cannot be said to remain stagnant over time and new elements of capability and knowledge may be introduced to test of simple level of literacy and therefore, understanding in the present day. Learned Additional Advocate-General has informed that the entry test is multiple choice test which is simple and evaluates aptitude as well as understanding of facts and subjects of common knowledge. The more significant point that he has made is that the said test has been applied successfully for the last 10 years without objection.
6. To the mind of the Court, consistent departmental practice itself constitutes a fair ground to continue that practice. The reason is the certainty that it brings to administrative policies. Secondly, in this matter specification of 60% pass marks is of no relevance. What is relevant is the level of knowledge that is expected of a candidate. Even at the erstwhile level of pass marks, the petitioners may still be excluded if the level of questions is raised. Consequently, objection taken by the petitioners is merely of a formal nature. Accordingly to the mind of the court, so long as the level of test is confined to basic knowledge, the passing marks fixed for eligibility to B-1 course does not infringe the Rules that are silent on the subject. Therefore, the impugned Standing Order 8 of 2001 does not violate any right of the petitioners as candidates.
7. Petition dismissed. K.M.Z./M-940/L Petition dismissed.