1989 PLP 382 (SCMR)
ABDUL JABBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus COUNCIL OF ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 382 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus COUNCIL OF ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 382 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 382 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 382 (SCMR) (ABDUL JABBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus COUNCIL OF ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1988.
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the' judgment dated 5-3-1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 22(8) of 1985).
Art. 212--Appointment by competent authority--Written test was conducted to determine the best candidate for the job--Petitioner protested against such written test and did not attempt the same and then he was not selected- Contention that as per qualifications contained in the advertisement he possessed the required degrees and was eligible for the post and the test was to be attempted only by persons holding degree in one subject--Petitioner not having taken the test, Service Tribunal found that he had no locus standi to agitate against his non-selection --Questions to be put in the test and their nature were matters purely for the authorities concerned--Action of authorities in including only questions which the candidates proficient in one subject only could and properly attempt, could not be held illegal.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The question in this case is whether the recruitment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Senior Translation Officer was against the law? It appears that a test was conducted by the Selection Committee to determine the best candidate. In this test the question paper which was given to the candidates contained only two passages, an Urdu passage which the candidates were required to translate into Arabic and a passage in Arabic which they were asked to translate into Urdu. The petitioner protested against the questions paper and did not attempt it. According to him whereas as per qualifications contained in the advertisement candidates possessing M.A. Degree in English, Arabic and Urdu were. eligible for, the post, the test which was held in pursuance; thereof could be attempted only by persons holding the degree of M.A. (Arabic) and the candidates holding degrees of MA. in English and MA. in Urdu thereby stood excluded. The Service Tribunal hits, inter alia, found that the petitioner not having taken the test had gone out of the contest anti, therefore, did not have any locus standi to agitate against his non‑selection. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the test conducted was neither legal, fair nor proper as candidates who were otherwise eligible for selection were disabled from the contest by the nature of the test that was conducted. There is some force in this submission, but the questions to be put in the test and their nature are matters purely for the authorities concerned. We appreciate the feelings of the petitioner but it cannot be held that the action of the authorities in including only questions which the candidates proficient in Arabic could properly attempt, was illegal. It is, therefore, not possible to interfere in these circumstances, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M.A.K./A‑363/S Petition dismissed.