1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Departmental Examination of B-1 for Police Constables---Petitioner claimed to have qualified such examination but was not allegedly declared as successful candidate by Authorities which would affect future promotion of petitioner---Report submitted by authorities showed that said examination was taken by- as many as 308 candidates, out of which 201 failed and that there were 34 vacancies for placing on merit in list of successful candidates in B-1 Examination and that petitioner could not qualify to be included in the B-1 list of successful candidates for purpose of training---Authorities brought in Court original answer book of petitioner which was marked by the examiner---No substantial error in the answer book of petitioner was found---Authority in its report and during hearing .stated that petitioner could again appear in such examination and if he qualified and came on merit in accordance with available vacancies, he would be included in B-1 list---Report of Authorities and statement of Authority and on basis of answer book shown in Court, no interference was warranted, particularly in view of the fact that doors for petitioner were not for ever closed---Petitioner along with other Constables, who were entitled to appear could again appear and on basis of his merit, decision could be taken by Authorities---Petitioner was not entitled to relief claimed by him in circumstances.
• Rana Ijaz Ahmad for Petitioner.
• Date of hearing: 27th November, 1995
• ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Departmental Examination of B‑1 for Police Constables‑‑‑Petitioner claimed to have qualified such examination but was not allegedly declared as successful candidate by Authorities which would affect future promotion of petitioner‑‑‑Report submitted by authorities showed that said examination was taken by‑ as many as 308 candidates, out of which 201 failed and that there were 34 vacancies for placing on merit in list of successful candidates in B‑1 Examination and that petitioner could not qualify to be included in the B‑1 list of successful candidates for purpose of training‑‑‑Authorities brought in Court original answer book of petitioner which was marked by the examiner‑‑‑No substantial error in the answer book of petitioner was found‑‑‑Authority in its report and during hearing .stated that petitioner could again appear in such examination and if he qualified and came on merit in accordance with available vacancies, he would be included in B‑1 list‑‑‑Report of Authorities and statement of Authority and on basis of answer book shown in Court, no interference was warranted, particularly in view of the fact that doors for petitioner were not for ever closed‑‑‑Petitioner along with other Constables, who were entitled to appear could again appear and on basis of his merit, decision could be taken by Authorities‑‑‑Petitioner was not entitled to relief claimed by him in circumstances.
• 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner who is employed as Police Constable and is posted in District Sialkot applied for the departmental examination of B‑1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner qualified the B‑1 examination, held in the month of October, 1995 but he was not declared as a successful candidate by the respondents which would affect the future promotion of the petitioner. The report was called for, which has been submitted by SP, Sialkot. In the report it is stated that the Board of Examiners consisting of the Addl. S.P., Sialkot, DSP Legal, Sialkot and SDPO, Saddar Sialkot, conducted the examination of as many as 308 candidates, out of which 201 failed. According to the report there were only 34 vacancies for placing on merit in the list of successful candidates in B‑1 Examinations and that the petitioner, on his merits Could not qualify to be included in the B‑1 list of successful candidates for the purposes of training. On the last date of hearting Ch. Muhammad Raza, S.P., Sialkot and other police officials appeared and showed me the original answer book of the petitioner which was marked by the examiner. I have seen the answer book and I do not find any substantial error in the marking of this answer book. Respondent No. 1 in his report as well as during the hearing stated that the petitioner can again appear in this examination and if he qualifies and comes on merit in accordance with the available vacancies, he would be included in B‑1 list, as the examination is held every year by the department.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree