P L D 2004 Supreme Court 4 (PLP)

R v. Amber Valley District Council ex P Jackson (1984) 3 All. ER 501 and Natural Justice by H.H. Marshall, First Edn., p.28 fol. (d) Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 1987

Regln. 2(8)

Co-opted Member of Commission

Qualification-- Regulation 2(8) of Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 1987 is silent as to status and rank of such member, but its only requirement is that he should be a senior officer. Petitioner in person. S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th February, 2003. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is directed against judgment dated 21-12-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 15497 of 1997.

2. The petitioner applied and appeared before the respondent No. 1 for the post of Senior Headmaster (BS-18) but was not selected. He filed Writ Petition No.15497 of 1997 which was disposed of, alongwith some other cases, by Lahore High Court, Lahore, by the impugned consolidated judgment in I.C.A. No.151 of 1994. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The petitioner appearing in person submitted that the respondent No.3, a District Education Officer, who was a co-opted member of the Public Service Commission, was biased against him. All the District Education Officers of the Punjab, as a class, were opposed to the policies of the Punjab Teachers Association of which the petitioner was the Vice Chairman. Therefore, his non-selection by the respondent No.1 was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of the departmental and policy bias of the respondent No.3. It was further argued that unless some higher officer of the Education Department was nominated as the departmental representative, the petitioner did not expect fair treatment at the hands of any District Education Officer in the Punjab, in the circumstances. It was next contended that the writ petition of the petitioner did not receive individual consideration by the Lahore High Court which was dismissed alongwith the I.C.A. No.151 of 1994 by the impugned judgment. It was lastly urged that the respondent No.3 being an officer of BS-18 was not qualified under Regulation 2(8) of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 1987 to participate in the selection process for the post of Senior Headmaster/Principal (BS-18).

4. We have heard the petitioner at length. The petitioner did not bring any material on record to show that there was any reasonable A likelihood of bias of the respondent No.3 against him. Ordinarily, mere allegations of a genera-I departmental or policy bias are not sustained in the absence of any tangible evidence in support thereof. In an English case IE Roebuck v. National Union of Mine Workers (Yorkshire Area) (No.2) (1978) I.C.R 676, it was observed that it might be argued before a domestic Tribunal of a Trade Union that all the Members of the Tribunal would favour the Union as against the Member in dispute with it. Such a general 'bias', however, did not disqualify Members of such a Tribunal. In If another case of R v. Amber Valley District Council ex P Jackson, (1984) 3 All ER 501 (Q.B.D), Woolf, J. (now Chief Justice of England) held that the fact that, as a matter of policy, the majority of members of a local planning authority were politically pre-disposed in favour of a proposed development did not disqualify them or the Council from adjudicating on the planning application for the development. Late H.H. Marshall in his Natural Justice, First Edition, page 28, also expressed his view that the interest (or bias) which disqualified must be one in the matter litigated and a mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would not disqualify a person. The interest or bias which disqualifies is an interest m a particular case, something reasonably likely to bias or influence the mind.

5. The aforesaid Regulation 2(8) only requires that a departmental representative participating in the selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission, should be a senior officer. However, it is silent as to rank and status of such co-opted member.

6. The petitioner was unable to satisfy us as to how he had been prejudiced by the impugned consolidated judgment passed in his case alongwith other cases. We have afforded adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who could not make out any case for the grant of leave to appeal.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused accordingly. S.A.K./A-440/S Leave refused.