1996SCMR 1353 (PLP)
Syed MAROOF GILANI‑‑‑Appellant Versus PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996SCMR 1353 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court. of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Ajmal Mian and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Syed MAROOF GILANI‑‑‑Appellant Versus PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR 1353 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR 1353 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court. of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Ajmal Mian and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR 1353 (PLP) (Syed MAROOF GILANI‑‑‑Appellant Versus PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hafiz Abdul Baqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- S. Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1993.
- Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hafiz Abdul Baqi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- S. Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order of Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, dated 30‑5‑1991 in Appeal No.58(K) of 1990). (a) Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Federal Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978, R. 2‑F‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider scope and authority of Federal Public Service Commission in allocation and re‑allocation of services to candidates who qualify in C.S.S. Examination. (b) Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Federal Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978, A. 2‑F‑‑ Allocation and re‑allocation of services to candidates who qualify in C.S.S. Examination‑‑‑Prospectus for the examination clearly stated that Government had the right to allocate a candidate against any group/service irrespective of his or her preference, in public interest, and that no appeal against the decision of Government would be entertainable‑‑‑Federal Public Service Commission having found candidate unsuitable for appointment to group of his first choice and decision of Government not to appoint him to said group being based upon advice tendered to it by the Commission, same could not be deemed to be either arbitrary or whimsical‑‑‑Candidate had failed to show that Federal Public Service Commission was motivated by ulterior consideration when it declared him unsuitable for the service of his first choice.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.
The appellant appeared in the Competitive Examination hold by the federal Public Service Commission in 1986 for appointment to various services under the Federal Government in the basic Pay Scale No.
17. He gave his domicile as Sindh (Rural). He secured fifth position in order of merit among the candidates of the same domicile. While giving his choice for different services he indicated the following order of preference: (1) Customs and Excise Group. (2) District Management Group. (3) Income-tax Group. Some of the candidates who had the same domicile as the appellant did not join service with the result that he became eligible for appointment to the service of his first choice, namely, 'Customs and Excise'. However, he was not appointed to that service for the reason that the Federal Public Service Commission declared him unfit for that service. On the other hand, he was offered an appointment in the Income-tax group. His representation to the Government for appointment to the Customs and Excise service failed. He then filed a Constitution petition in the High Court. This too was dismissed.
2. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the scope of the authority of the Federal Public Service Commission in allocation and re-allocation of the services to the candidates who qualify in CSS Examination.
3. It may be mentioned that paragraph 14 of the prospectus for the examination clearly stated that the Government had the right to allocate a candidate against any Group/Service irrespective of his or her preferences, in public interest, and that no appeal against the decision of the Government in this regard was entertainable. As already indicated, the Federal Public Service commission found the appellant unsuitable for appointment to the 'Customs and Excise' Group. The decision of the Government not to appoint him to the said group was based upon the advice tendered to it by the Commissioner which had examined him both orally and through a written test. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Government's decision was arbitrary or whimsical. The appellant has not been able to show that the Federal Public Service Commission was motivated by an ulterior consideration when it declared him unsuitable for the service of his first choice. We therefore do not think that this is a fit case for I interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed. A.A./M-3024/S Appeal dismissed.