2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.

This Constitutional Petition has been filed by petitioner Arshad Ali Tabassum with the following prayer:-- "In view of the submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the constitutional petition may kindly be accepted and the result announced through Notification No. 83/RHC/AD&SJJ dated 24-5-2013 issued by the Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore may kindly be amended and modified and the petitioner may graciously be declared to have qualified the competitive examination of Additional District and Sessions Judges in consequence whereof the petitioner may graciously be ordered to be appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who claims to be qualified to appear and participate in the competitive examination by virtue of his academic qualification and practicing lawyer in response to the advertisement issued by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, inviting applications for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, has appeared in NTS paper (objective type) and qualified the same by securing 86% marks which were 3rd highest marks in Punjab. The petitioner claims that he also qualified the subjective paper and was called for interview on 20-3-2013 but he was not recommended for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, mainly on the ground that he had committed misconduct during his service as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. Petitioner challenged the notification of Additional District and Sessions Judges issued on 24-5-2013 before the Lahore High Court but the same was declined. The petitioner also filed a review petition challenging the said notification which was also rejected.

3. Earlier, the petitioner had appeared in the competitive examination for the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate conducted by the Lahore High Court and was appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate vide Notification of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 9-5-2007. Petitioner remained posted at different places and according to him he successfully completed his departmental training and qualified his departmental examination during his service. His services were, however, terminated on the ground that the petitioner on 1-8-2008 had slapped the Superintendent and has also took out pistol and threatened him, who saved his life by confining in a room. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer exonerated him but the Authority did not agree with the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and the services of the petitioner were terminated.

4. The petitioner while appearing in person contended that despite the fact that after qualifying the NTS test securing third highest marks he had passed the written test for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge but he was not selected by the Interviewing Committee for the simple reason that his services were terminated as Civil Judge on the charge of misconduct under section 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (PCS) Act, 1974, and that the charge of misconduct could not have been used against him for permanently ousting him from any competitive examination, as such, a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place.

5. Learned Additional Advocate-General, on the other hand, has pointed out that petitioner filed appeal before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore, which has been dismissed and the said order has attained finality. He contends that the petitioner failed in interview as he could not secure 50 marks out of 100 as per criteria laid down by the Examination Committee and due to this reason he was not appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge, as such, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard the petitioner in person as well as learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab and have perused the available record. It is an admitted fact that the Interviewing Committee laid down a criteria for filling in the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge as under:-- "

17. Interview of 100 marks of successful candidates will be conducted by the Examination Committee. The Candidates securing 50% marks in interview and falling in merit will be considered for recommendation of their appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge." Out of 904 candidates, who appeared in the written examination, 53 candidates were declared pass therein. The aforesaid 53 candidates were called for interview as per aforementioned criteria laid down by the Examination Committee out of whom only 31 candidates could pass the interview and they were appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges vide Notification dated 3-6-2013. The petitioner failed to obtain requisite marks in the interview for having him declared pass, as such, was not recommended for appointment as he obtained 40 marks in interview out of 100 marks whereas according to the afore quoted criteria, a candidate can only be eligible for appointment if he obtains 50% marks in the interview but the petitioner could not obtain the marks according to the criteria.

7. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not recommended for appointment by the committee due to the malice on the part of the members of the Interview Committee for the reason that his services were terminated as Civil Judge on the charge of misconduct, is concerned, suffice it to observe that according to the established principle of law this Court cannot substitute opinion of the Interview Committee on the bald allegation after losing the chance in the interview. Reference is made to the case of Asif Mahmood Chughtai, Advocate and 17 others v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (2000 SCMR 966), Dr. Mir Alam Jan v. Dr. Muhammad Shahzad and others (2008 SCMR 960) and Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 157). In such circumstances, the petitioner could not establish any malice on the part of the Interview Committee. There is also no measuring apparatus with this Court to determine that the petitioner was deferred in the interview by the Interview Committee only for the sole reason of his misconduct as Civil Judge. It is presumed that the Interview Committee must have given the petitioner marks after judging his ability without being influenced by the earlier misconduct of the petitioner as the Interview Committee was not acting as Disciplinary Committee dealing with the misconduct of the petitioner. Since the petitioner could not fulfil the requisite criteria for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, therefore, he was not recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee, thus, no illegality has been committed by the respondent while acting on the recommendations of the Examination Committee warranting interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

8. Upshot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. MWA/A-17/SC Petition dismissed.