2022 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus FPSC through Chairman and another
| Citation | 2022 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J |
| Parties | ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus FPSC through Chairman and another |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus FPSC through Chairman and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Sikandar, Assistant Attorney General for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Terms and conditions of service
Evaluation of a candidate / civil servant via an interview
Scope
Interview of a candidate / civil servant was a subjective test, and it was not possible for a court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of a "viva voce board" or interview committee; and it was within domain of members of such a committee to determine as to what persuaded them to award certain marks to a particular candidate and a court of law could not substitute its findings for that of such committee. Arshad Ali Tabassum v. The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2015 SCMR 112; Miss Gulnaz Baloch v. Registrar, Balochistan High Court, Quetta and others 2015 PLC (C.S.) 393; Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2014 SCMR 157 and Dr. Mir Alam Jan v. Dr. Muhammad Shahzad and others 2008 SCMR 960 rel. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.
Through instant appeal, appellant has assailed vires of order dated 09.09.2015, passed by learned Federal Public Service Commission, whereby appellant's review petition, against rejection of his representation, was dismissed.
2. Appellant in person, with permission of the Court, submits that one of the members of interview panel was not present when appellant's interview was conducted and this change in composition of interview panel is absolutely illegal rendering the whole interview process unsustainable. When confronted, learned Law Officer has cited Regulations i.e. Section Officers Promotional Exam-2012 to contend that no illegality has been committed by respondents.
3. Perusal of record shows that appellant's interview was conducted on 13.09.2013 and he did not raise any objection qua composition of interview panel. However, after result wherein he secured low marks, he raised this objection by filing representation on 29.01.2015, after more than one year and 04-months. The matter relates to the year 2015 and the posts have already been filled, wherein appellant could not qualify, thus, the matter has become a past and closed transaction. Even otherwise, interview was a subjective test and it is not possible for a Court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of Viva Voce Board/Interview Committee, rather it was within the domain of its Members that what persuaded them to award certain marks to a particular candidate and the Court of law is not expected to substitute their findings with its own findings. Reference can be made to Arshad Ali Tabassum v. The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore (2015 SCMR 112), Miss Gulnaz Baloch v. Registrar, Balochistan High Court, Quetta and others [2015 PLC (C.S.) 393], Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 157) and Dr. Mir Alam Jan Muhammad Shahzad and others (2008 SCMR 960).
4. In view of the above, instant appeal, being devoid of any force, is dismissed. No order as to costs. KMZ/A-4/L Appeal dismissed.