2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J.

This Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 questions the legality and validity of Order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Bench, pursuant whereto Writ Petition bearing No.43921/2023 filed by Respondent No.1, Babar Ali stood allowed, directing the Appellant department to issue appointment letter to him for the post of Sub-Inspector.

2. This Larger Bench was constituted under the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice in the wake of the order of referral dated 14.10.2024. For the purposes of convenience, the reasons for constitution of this Bench are reproduced hereunder: "

2. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has made reference to the judgment dated 12.06.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.3805/2023 [at Multan Bench of this Court] by one of us (Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J.) and judgment dated 07.09.2021 passed in I.C.A.No.407/2019 [at Multan Bench of this Court] by a learned Division Bench wherein one of us (Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J.) was also a member and both these cases have also been decided while relying on dictum laid down in Yousaf Haroon's case as such the judgment was rightly passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber.

3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while relying on judgment cited as Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others (PLD 1995 SC 423) office is directed to place this case before the Hon'ble Chief Justice with the request to constitute a larger Bench in the instant matter.

3. The challenge put forward by the Appellant seeking impeachment of the Order, emanates from proceedings, wherein Babar Ali sought indulgence of this Court by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 agitating grievance summarized through following prayer clause: "Under the submissions made above, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that while accepting the instant petition, the impugned act of respondents Nos.2 and 3 qua second measurement of height of the petitioner, may kindly be declared illegal and without lawful authority, unlawful, ultra-vires, non-speaking, null and void, based on mala fide intention and without lawful jurisdiction and same may kindly be struck down/set-aside, as a result whereof, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to issue appointment letter of the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector in Punjab Police for Lahore Region in the interest of justice." [emphasis added]

4. It was Babar Ali's assertion, canvassed through his Petition that he deserved issuance of appointment letter for the post of Sub-Inspector (BS-14). The gravamen of the Writ Petitioner throughout remained that his height was measured as 5-feet, 7-inches by Government Mian Munshi DHQ Teaching Hospital, Lahore, therefore, re-determination, re-examination or second examination of his height for determining physical measurement was arbitrary, unlawful and ultra vires to his inviolable rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

5. The Impugned Order by following the rule of consistency allowed the Writ Petition and directed one of the Appellants i.e., Police Department to issue appointment letter to Babar Ali for the following reasons:

2. The issue raised by the petitioner has already been decided by this Court in a number of writ petitions in which it is held that the respondents have no authority to order for a second medical examination of a candidate once the requirement of the advertisement for obtaining medical fitness certificate from District Headquarter Hospital is fulfilled certifying that the candidate meets the criteria mentioned in the advertisement. A specific reference may be made to the judgments rendered by this Court in Writ Petitions Nos.11877 of 2017 and 2530 of 2021, which were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector on the basis of second medical certificate is not sustainable." [emphasis added] The Impugned Order also contained a direction in paragraph 3 of the Order in the following terms:

3. Before parting with this order, it is noted that time and again petitions agitating a similar issue are being filed before this Court. The respondents in the advertisements in future must include a stipulation for second medical examination of the candidates in case they are not satisfied with and have doubts about the medical fitness certificates obtained by the candidates from the District Headquarter Hospitals."

6. Learned Advocate General, Punjab, while re-agitating the grounds canvassed through the instant Appeal submits that the Impugned Order erred in law as well as facts and is susceptible to interference by us. According to learned Advocate General, the Impugned Order was passed by making a specific reference to Orders rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.11877/2017 titled Muhammad Wasif Khan v. IG Police and others and Writ Petition No.2530/2021 titled Muhammad Shahid Nawaz v. Inspector General of Police. It has been described before us that actually the Impugned Order as well as Shahid Nawaz's case derived analogy from order passed in Muhammad Wasif Khan's case. According to him, Muhammad Wasif Khan's case supra was decided on the basis of Judgment rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Yousaf Haroon and others v. Punjab Public Service Commission, Agha Khan/Davis Road, Lahore through Secretary and others" (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 1012). Submits that the cases of Muhammad Wasif Khan as well as Yousaf Haroon were entirely different from the instant case and the Impugned Order erred in law by relying upon them as a reference case. Adds that while passing the Impugned Order as well as previous orders, the learned Single Judges-in-Chambers misread or ignored the position of law envisaged in Rule 12.16 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (the "Rules of 1934") and Rule 21.A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (the "Service Rules, 1974"), therefore, according to learned Advocate General, the Impugned Order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. To counter the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, learned counsel for Babar Ali has attacked the Maintainability of instant Appeal on two grounds; firstly, that instant Appeal is barred by time, therefore, the challenge thrown to the Impugned Order is a non-starter and to cement his contention learned counsel has relied upon Judgments reported as "The Agricultural and Research Department and others v. Muhammad Tariq Javed and others" (2019 CLC 1972) and "The Inspector General of Police Punjab through District Police Officer v. Abdul Salam and others" (2019 CLC 1156). Secondly, According to learned counsel, the advertisement contained no stipulation with respect to re-examination or second examination of candidates to verify their physical fitness. According to him, the Order in Muhammad Shahid Nawaz's case (Writ Petition No.2530/2021) has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Order dated 01.08.2022 passed in Civil Appeals Nos.288 and 289 of 2022 and CMAs Nos.819-L and 1803-L of 2021. Adds that the Appellant's approach towards instant case is misconceived as its fate instead of Rules of 1934 is to be governed by Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 (the "Rules of 2013"). Therefore, according to learned counsel, the instant Appeal is meritless and misconceived and same is liable to be dismissed.

8. After attending able assistance rendered by both sides, we have minutely examined the record as well as position of law. The foremost objection, which attracted our attention is with respect to time barred status of instant Appeal. We have noticed that the Impugned Order was passed on 27.09.2023 and Appellants instead of waiting for its certified copy filed the instant Appeal within a period of twenty days. The seal affixed at the opening form reflects that it was diarized on 17.10.2023 through Diary No.162337, upon receiving sanction letter from the Solicitor Department. After removal of objections including but not limited to submission of court fee and attestation of affidavits, the instant Appeal was re-submitted on 23.10.2023, therefore, instant Appeal cannot be considered to be barred by time and Babar Ali's objection in this regard appears to be misconceived.

9. On merits of the case while analyzing factual matrix, we have noticed that Punjab Public Service Commission (the "Commission") through advertisement No.29 of 2020, for the posts of Sub-Inspectors (BS-14), solicited applications for appointments on regular basis from service quota and on open merit. The advertisement was published in editions of 20.10.2020 of various newspapers including the daily "Express" and daily "the Nation". Apart from academic qualification, experience and other criteria, the physical standards conceived by the appointing authority was duly mentioned in the advertisement for male candidates as height of 5-feet, 7-inches(170.18 cm) with chest 33- 34 1/2 inches.

10. The candidates were required to mention physical standards in their online application forms as per certificate of physical standards issued by the Medical Superintendents of District Headquarter Hospitals, Services Hospital, Lahore or Police Hospitals. Like many other candidates, Babar Ali also applied for the subject matter post. As per condition of advertisement, to pass the physical standards Babar Ali submitted a certificate bearing No.5213 dated 05.11.2020. The examining Medical Officer and Medical Superintendent of Govt. Mian Munshi DHQ Teaching Hospital, Lahore issued certificate, inter alia, describing height of Babar Ali as 5-feet, 7-inches. The certificate specifically stipulated the standards as provisional measurement .

11. The Commission through letter dated 29.12.2022 approved the candidates and recommended them for appointment against the subject matter posts, which included the name of Babar Ali. The recommendations of the Commission were subject to fulfillment of two conditions contained in sub-clauses (4) and (6) of letter dated 29.12.2022, (i) passing of medical tests by the candidates prescribed under the Rules and (ii) that the administrative department should get compulsory verification of credentials/degrees/experience certificates from the respective Boards or Universities.

12. Upon recommendations of the Commission, the administrative department i.e. office of the Capital City, Police Officer, Lahore, issued offer letter dated 11.04.2023 to Babar Ali containing terms and conditions, inter alia, (vi) that you will have to undergo prescribed medical examination before your appointment orders are issued'. This offer was accepted by him on 13.04.2023 endorsing a note 'I accept above said terms and conditions .

13. Subsequently, the administrative department through letter dated 09.05.2023 recommended medical examination of candidates, including Babar Ali to Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore. As per the contents of the said letter, the candidates were referred for necessary medical examination including physical measurement (height and chest) through Medical Board, according to rules and instructions under Rule 12.2 of the Rules of 1934. Upon examination the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore issued certificate, wherein the height of Babar Ali was declared as 169.1 cm as opposed to 170.18 cm declared as per the certificate submitted by him along with his application. Since the physical standard for height was deficient from the required standard, therefore, the appointment to Babar Ali was refused.

14. We feel that contentions contained in Writ Petition simply represented wishful thinking or afterthought of Babar Ali. Actually in terms of law, he was estopped by conduct to question the process. The certificate presented by him for consideration of his application specifically mentioned that height reflected in the certificate was provisional. The letter issued by the Commission was subject to verification of physical tests required under the Rules of 1934. The offer letter issued by the administrative department was also subject to condition that the Respondent No.1 had to undergo prescribed medical examination before issuance of the appointment orders. While accepting the offer letter, Babar Ali had also accepted the terms and conditions contained therein, therefore, he could not be permitted to take a somersault aimed to object the examination proceedings undertaken upon the recommendations of administrative department, especially when the candidate had himself participated in all proceedings without any challenge or protest, therefore, now he cannot be permitted to turn around and question or challenge the process of induction through physical examination. Reliance in this regard is placed on case law reported as "Silver Star Insurance Company Limited, Lahore through Chief Executive v. Messrs Kamal Pipes Industries, Lahore and another" (2023 CLD 1342), "Muhammad Hussain and another v. Muhammad Shafi and others" (2004 SCMR 1947) and "Mirza Nasir and 2 others v. Mirza Hakim-ud-Din, Managing Director, Jahangir Engineering Company, Gujranwala and 2 others" (2001 MLD 431).

15. Let's examine whether upon recommendation of Commission, the examination of physical standards has a legal backing or not? On a deeper appreciation of position of law as well as criterion envisaged in the rules and expressed by the advertisement exhibits that the term re-examination or second examination/measurement has been coined by the Respondent No.1. Actually, the condition with respect to physical measurement stipulated in the advertisement was not an examination, conducted by the department rather it was candidates' own submission of certificates from the designated hospitals recommended by the administrative department or the Commission. By their nature, these stipulations in advertisement were meant for ease of a candidate and logically were tentative in nature. The designated hospitals rightly described these physical tests or measurements as 'provisional measurements' as ultimately the administrative department upon recommendations of the Commission had a right to evaluate, assess and verify the recommendations and certificates tendered by the candidates.

16. This concept has been conceived by Rule 21-A of the Service Rules, 1974 and for ease the provision is reproduced hereunder: "[21-A. (1) No person, not already in Government service shall be appointed to a post unless he produces a certificate of character from the principal Academic Officer of the academic institution last attended and also certificates of character from two responsible persons not being his relatives who are well acquainted with his character and antecedents. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (1) an appointment by initial recruitment shall be subject to the verification of character and antecedents of the candidate or the person appointed to the satisfaction of the appointing authority.] [(3) Alteration in the date of birth. The date of birth once recorded at the time of joining Government service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth of a civil servant shall be permissible.] [(4) The appointing authority shall complete the process of appointment within one hundred and ninety days from the date of issue of recommendations by the Punjab Public Service Commission and no request for extension in the joining time as specified by the offer of appointment shall be entertained]. (5) If a person to whom offer of appointment has been issued fails to join his post within the period, specified in the said offer of appointment, his selection shall automatically stand cancelled." [emphasis added]

17. The concept of verification was conceived by the Service Rules, 1974 envisaging that initial recruitment shall remain subject to verification of character and antecedents of the candidate or the person appointed to the satisfaction of the appointing authority. This is otherwise a bare minimum expectation to protect the rights and interests of any appointing authority or administrative department. The condition of verification and satisfaction of administrative department applies with greater force for recruitments or appointments in Police department, entailing nature of duty and higher standards of honest, moral integrity and physical fitness. For the personnel of Armed Forces including Police Force, loyalty, integrity, competence and fitness is sine qua none in order to strengthen the public interests and confidence upon the security forces. To sift out the most suitable candidate, the appointing authority is fully empowered to evaluate and verify the credentials and physical standards of a candidate.

18. In statutory framework, the present applicable law is Police Order, 2002 (the "Order, 2002"). Prior to promulgation of Order, 2002, the Police Act, 1861 (the "Act, 1861") was in field, where-under the Rules of 1934 were promulgated. In terms of Article 185 of the Order 2002, the Act, 1861 was repealed, however, the Rules of 1934 have been saved under proviso (a) of the same provisions. Chapter XII of the Rules of 1934 contains a criteria described in Rule 12.16 which is reproduced hereunder: 12.16. Recruits Medical examination of.- (1) Every recruit shall before enrolment, be medically examined and certified physically fit for service by the Civil Surgeon. A certificate, in the prescribed form (10.64) signed by the Civil Surgeon personally, is an essential qualification for enrolment - (vide Fundamental Rule 10) The examination by the Civil Surgeon will be conducted in accordance with the instruction issued by the medical department and will test the eyesight, speech and hearing of the candidate, his freedom from physical defects, organic or contagious disease, or any other defect or tendency likely to render him unfit, and his age. The candidate must strip for examination, a loin covering being allowed except when the examination is being completed, and any candidate who refused to do so must be rejected. The conditions of police service make it necessary that the medical examination of candidates should be strict. Candidates shall be rejected for any disease or defect which is likely to render them unfit for the full duties of a police officer. (2). Superintendents are themselves responsible for rejecting candidate whose general standard of physique and intelligence is unsatisfactory; only those candidate should be sent for medical examination whom the Superintendent has accepted a being up to the required standards in these respects. (See - Appendix.12.16).

19. The conditions of Police service make it imperative that medical examination with respect to candidates should be strict and any candidate who lacks physical standards or intelligence criteria shall be rejected.

20. Now adverting to the Rules of 2013, notified on 02.01.2014, framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 112 of the Order, 2002. Under Rule 13 of these Rules, the method of recruitment, minimum qualifications, age limit and other incidental matters for the posts of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors in the functional unit shall be such as given in the Schedule appended to the said Rules, which describes that minimum qualification for appointment by initial recruitment shall be (i) graduate from recognized University (ii) having physical standards of height for male 5-feet and 7-inches with chest measuring 33-34 1/2 inches. Rule 14 of the Rules of 2013 shall have effect notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Chapters XII and XIII of the Rules of 1934. The examination of Rules of 1934 as well as Rules of 2013 reflects that the criteria for evaluation of initial recruitment is not contrary to each other and the Rules of 2013 will only have overriding effect if anything contrary contained in Chapter XII of the Rules of 1934 is pointed out. Incidentally, for the purposes of assessment and determination of physical examination and standards of any candidate, there is no provision contained in the Rules of 2013, which is contrary to Chapter XII of the Rules of 1934. Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 2013 prescribes that a Regional Police Officer may discharge from service a Sub-Inspector appointed by initial recruitment during the period of probation if the Sub-Inspector fails to pass the prescribed examination or tests or fails to undertake or complete the requisite training or is deemed unsuitable for service in the police.

21. The argument of learned counsel for the Respondent that the Rules of 1934 have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and only applicable Rules are the Rules of 2013, also appears to be misconceived. These Rules actually supplement each other and unless contrary to each other, are to be read conjunctively. A Full Bench of this Court through its judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed in Intra Court Appeal No.37 of 2022 titled as "Government of the Punjab and others v. Muhammad Ahmad," has already declared that: "

10. Context being the advertisement under reference, controversy boils down to a fundamental question that whether the Rules, 2013, and conditions prescribed therein, have to treated and read as exhaustive or all-inclusive conditions, admitting of no other qualifications / conditions for the purposes of considering eligibility of the respondent, notwithstanding the vision standards provided in Rule 12.16 of Police Rules, 1934, appendix thereto or Notification of 1965. At first blush and upon threadbare analysis, textual reading of Rule 14 of the Rules, 2013 clearly suggests that over-riding effect provided in terms thereof is not absolute but cautiously qualified seemingly limited and preference extended to the extent of any inconsistency, if found qua Chapters 12 and 13 of Police Rules, 1934. Rules 13 and 14 of the Rules, 2013 complement each other, which require conjunctive reading. Argument by respondent's counsel that absolute exclusivity was extended to the minimum qualifications in the schedule by virtue of Rule 14 of the Rules, 2013, in the context of other requisite qualifications, is wrong on two-counts. Firstly, absolute exclusion of other conditions. available and attracted in terms of Rule 12.16 of the Police Rules, 1934 and appendix thereto was neither intended nor any such effect could be extended while undertaking recruitment, unless any particular requirement under Chapter 12 of the Police Rules, 1934 is found contrary to the qualifications identified in the schedule to the Rules, 2013. Expression "these rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything contrary contained in Chapters 12 and 13 of the Police Rules, 1934" must be accorded due deference, as long as Rules are not amended to otherwise limit or expand the scope of inconsistency(ies). Hence, overriding effect is restricted to the extent of inconsistency and not otherwise. Mere non-mentioning of any qualification, otherwise identified in the Rule 12.16 and appendix thereto or in the Notification of 1965, could not be construed as conscious omission. Evidently, Rules, 2013 are not a complete code in itself. Secondly, alternate plea that indication of express conditions entails implied repeal of the requirements under Rule 12.16 of the Police Rules, 1934 is also without substance. No question of implied repeal arose upon textual reading of Rule 14 of the Rules, 2013. Argument is otherwise illogical. No recruit could claim absolute entitlement to the appointment against post under reference, simply upon claiming fulfillment of minimum qualifications in the schedule to the Rules, 2013. It is reiterated that qualifications prescribed in the schedule constitute bare minimum requirements, which have to be read in conjunction with other applicable qualifications, not otherwise inconsistent." [emphasis added]

22. There also appears to be a fallacy and misconstrued logic in the argument that since the Commission had recommended the candidates, therefore, that recommendation becomes conclusive step for appointment and no step thereafter could be taken by the department. This argument is self-destructive. Even if it is assumed that the Rules of 2013 will be solely applicable, the Rule 5 of the Rules of 2013 negates the misplaced argument. The mere recommendation of the Commission is not enough to secure the appointment as the certification under Rule 12.16 of the Rules of 1934 is mandatory and Respondent No.1 cannot even assume a vested right in his favour because verification of physical standards is condition precedent to these appointments. A recent judgment reported as "Javed Ali and another v. Inspector General of Police, Sindh and others (2024 SCMR 1896) has declared that due diligence in human resource is an all-encompassing procedure for systematically assessing the qualifications and fitness of the candidates in the organization, so the recruitment process should ensure that the recruitment is based on truthful data and the applicant fulfills the criteria required for the post, including the credentials, verification of qualification, and relevant experience, if any. A standardized assessment procedure of job applications not only safeguards the fairness and objectivity but also relegates the menace of bias and discrimination in the appointment process.

23. The recruitment process commences through advertisement identifying the vacant situations and required qualifications. This process is aimed to assess the candidates to participate in the competition process. The step is through submission of application with antecedents and credentials demonstrating that a candidate fulfills the qualification, academic or physical standards, required for a specific post. It is part of every system that in case there appears to be a lapse the candidate may be called upon to rectify the defect, but the condition precedent always remains that if application is not found commensurate to the terms and conditions described by the advertisement or the law, the candidate must be rejected at initial stage.

24. Now finally adverting to the Impugned Order, which in paragraph No.2 records that question raised through Constitutional petition filed by Respondent No.1 already stands decided by this Court in number of petitions, therefore, second medical examination of any candidate was held to be unlawful and specific reference in this regard was made to Muhammad Wasif Khan's case supra and Muhammad Shahid Nawaz case. Therefore, instead of analyzing the legality contained in the Impugned Order it is imperative that the Order in Muhammad Wasif Khan's case be analyzed first.

25. From perusal of order dated 20.06.2018 passed by this Court in Muhammad Wasif Khan's case, it appears that in identical facts and circumstances, the learned Single Bench of this Court arrived at a conclusion that once requirement qua height in one measurement process is complied with, the second measurement was not justified and consequently, the direction for second measurement was declared to be without lawful authority. For ease the facts narrated in paragraph No.8 of the order are reproduced hereunder: "

8. Initially as a result of advertisement issued by the respondents, applications for recruitment of 21 posts of SIs (including 03 posts reserved for women and 01 post reserved for minority quota) in the police department were invited by the PPSC, wherein the conditions of eligibility were notified in the advertisement which included height for male 5 feet 7 inches (170.18 cm). In the said advertisement, it was stated that candidates are required to mention physical standard in their online application form as per certificate of physical standard obtained from the Medical Superintendent of the District Headquarter Hospital or Services Hospital, Lahore or DHQ, Hospital from respective regions with further condition that relaxation in age, qualification and physical standard shall not be granted in any case. As per the requirement, the petitioner got his height measured from Medical Superintendent, DHQ Hospital, Vehari wherein it was determined as 5 feet 7 inches and his application was processed by the concerned authorities including PPSC which recommended the appointment of the petitioner on merits. The said advertisement attached with the comments and terms and conditions did not mention that after the selection process, the candidates would be medically re-examined after appointment to determine their physical measurements. On the particular date when the petitioner's height was initially measured, it was found to be corresponding with the requirement for appointment i.e. 5 feet 7 inches."

26. The perusal of order passed in Muhammad Wasif Khan's case reflects that on account of lack of due assistance it does not take account of provisions of law contained in Chapter XII and more specifically Rules 12.14, 12.16 and 12.18 of the Rules of 1934 as well as Rules of 2013. So, without analyzing the importance and inter-play of these provisions, the Court arrived at a conclusion that since there was no provision of second examination or re-examination stipulated by the advertisement, therefore, the second examination directed by the department was declared to be arbitrary and unlawful.

27. For arriving at this conclusion, the Order relied upon Yousaf Haroon's case (supra). We agree with the contention raised by the learned Advocate General that Yousaf Haroon's case had been made foundation of acceptance of Muhammad Wasif Khan's case but the ratio of Yousaf Haroon's case is entirely different wherein three questions were involved. Those questions have also been discussed in earlier order dated 14.10.2024 at the time of referring the matter to Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of Larger Bench and these questions are (i) Whether the doctrine of equality, as embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was applied to the facts and circumstances of the instant case; (ii) Whether the health authorities is/are competent to measure height, chest of successful candidates and the Boards, constituted by the Province of Punjab is competent to undertake the said exercise; and (iii) Whether the Respondent is entitled to the benefit of relaxation of conditions regarding measurement of height and chest under rule 12.16 of the Rules of 1934.

28. The paragraph No.2 of the Yousaf Haroon's judgment reflects that appellant as well as other petitioners in connected matters brought their petitions by contending that Commission invited applications for appointment of Inspectors in Punjab Police and Yousaf Haroon as well as other petitioner succeeded in induction process and they were recommended by the Commission for appointment. Subsequently, a complaint was filed that few candidates had manipulated the recruitment process by securing false certificates regarding their physical standards from Medical Officers which might require recall of appointment orders. The board comprising of DIGs, Police Range Superintendents of Police and Medical Superintendents of Headquarter Hospitals examined the candidates and found them deficient in height and chest and matter was referred to Provincial Government for necessary action. With this background the writ petition was instituted.

29. In paragraph No.12 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under: "

12. What floats on the surface is that with a view to completing their documents in all respects, as a preclude to their joining service as Police Inspectors, the appellants had to appear before the respective Medical Superintendent at the District/Divisional levels. They did so and the result-sheets of the measurements in question were appended to the official correspondence of the appellants with the ommission/Government/respondent-Authorities. It is not the case of anybody that in the matter of obtaining the documents indicating the performance of their official duties/acts by the concerned quarters in terms of the existing/extant procedure, the appellants are to blame to any extent whatsoever. It is also abundantly clear from the record that the result of the documentation was duly reflected in the subsequent stages of the process leading to the filling of vacancies of Police Inspectors in terms of advertisement dated 28-9 1997. Put differently, the appellants complied with all the instructions/directions issued to them by the authorities concerned in the matter of having the measurements taken as above. The results of the measurements taken in relation to the appellants were duly adhered to and pressed into service for being acted upon by the respondent-authorities, by the functionaries of the Health Department with the assertion that the scales provided to them by the Government are not of the same make/details as the ones available at the Headquarters. A perusal of Letter No.4227/AIMH/98 Sialkot, dated 7th August, 1998 addressed by the Capt. Dr. Mukhtar Ali M.S. AIM Hospital Sialkot to the Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore on the Subject: "show-cause notice", copy whereof is available at pages 86 to 88 of the Paper Book in C.A.1199 of 1999, shows:

"(A) Mr. Shahid Ikram... On receipt of the show-cause notice, in order to investigate the discrepancy of the various heights, the two scales i.e. of the Hospital and the Police Department, Sialkot were compared and it was found that the inches on both the scales are not equal. The one in the Hospital provided by the Health Department has inches which are smaller than those of the Police Department. This probably is the reason of the difference in the heights on the two scales. This is also supported by the fact that the Divisional Standing Medical Board Gujranwala (Div. Headquarter Hospital) has also given the same height as from this Hospital (copy enclosed at Annex. 'A') .... ... The Heights measured by the S.S.P. Sialkot and D.I.G. Gujranwala are not consistent with each other. This also is probably because the scales are not alike. The variation of two scales i.e. of the Hospital and Police Department can be verified by anybody. In case the Health Department, puts reliance on the Police Department Scale then in future the help of the Police Officials will be sought." And consequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion: "

16. There is force in the arguments addressed at the Bar on behalf of the appellants that they were not put under notice when the respondent-authorities decided to 're-check' the measurements in question. The observations by this Court in Zakar Ahmad (supra) that: "

Nevertheless, the general consensus for judicial opinion seems to be that, in order to ensure the "elementary and essential principles of fairness" as a matter of necessary implication, the person sought to be affected must at least be made aware of the nature of the allegations against him, he should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his own case and "to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice." Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him. Such a person or authority can obtain information in any way it thinks fit, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him. In other words, "in order to act justly and to reach just ends by just means" the Courts insist that the person or authority should have adopted the above "elementary and essential principles" unless the same had been expressly excluded by the enactment empowering him to so act".

30. A careful examination of the judgment in Yousaf Haroon's case reveals that the process of re-examination was invalidated on entirely distinct legal and factual grounds. Notably, the petitioners in that case, including Yousaf Maroon himself, were not issued any notice, thereby raising serious concerns of procedural impropriety, rather than any substantive determination under the applicable service rules. Consequently, the factual matrix and legal foundation of Yousaf Haroon's case are clearly inapplicable to the present case.

31. Conversely, the Order passed in the case of Muhammad Wasif Khan suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity, i.e. that it was rendered without any reference to or analysis of the controlling statutory framework, specifically Rule 21.A of the Service Rules, 1974, Rule 12.16 of the Rules of 1934, or the corresponding provisions under the Rules of 2013. This apparent omission renders the decision legally unsustainable. The only discernible basis for the Order appears to be a misplaced reliance on the judgment in Yousaf Haroon s case, which, as already noted, rests on an entirely different legal footing and catering or tackling entirely different set of facts. Such a decision, rendered in disregard of relevant statutory provisions, attracts the doctrine of per incuriam. This well-established doctrine, which translates to "through want of care," applies to judgments/orders made in ignorance or omission of a binding legal provision or precedent. A decision rendered per incuriam is devoid of precedential authority and does not have binding effect in subsequent cases. The superior courts have consistently held that any decision which overlooks a mandatory statutory provision or misapplies precedent stands vitiated and cannot be relied upon as a correct exposition of law.

32. In the instant matter, the Order in Muhammad Wasif Khan's case was passed without the benefit of appropriate legal assistance, and the failure to consider the relevant service rules goes to the root of the adjudicatory process. The Order, therefore, cannot be regarded as having been made in accordance with law and must be treated as per incuriam. Accordingly, we declare that the said Order passed in Muhammad Wasif Khan's case has no binding legal effect and does not create any precedent. Support for this view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chaudhary Pervez Elahi v. Deputy Speaker, Provincial Assembly of Punjab, Lahore and others" (PLD 2023 SC 539); "Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division and another v. Abdul Rasheed Memon" (2025 SCMR 532) and "Messrs International Tanners and Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others" (2004 PTD 2180), wherein it has been categorically held that decisions rendered in contravention of statutory provisions or without proper legal scrutiny are to be treated as per incuriam and are not binding on future cases.

33. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the Order passed in Muhammad Wasif Khan's case (supra), having been rendered without reference to the applicable statutory provisions and in disregard of the relevant legal framework, must be treated as per incuriam. Consequently, it does not constitute a binding precedent and cannot be relied upon. Since the Impugned Order is principally founded on the reasoning adopted in Muhammad Wasif Khan's case, therefore, it cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, this Intra Court Appeal is allowed, and the Impugned Order dated 27.09.2023 is set aside. No order as to costs. MH/P-18/L Appeal allowed.