2014 PLP 157 (SCMR)

SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.

This Petition impugns the order of the Learned Sindh High Court (Karachi) in Miscellaneous Appeal No.59 of 2012 filed by the petitioner whereby same was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the petitioner appeared in the Central Superior Service Examination (CSS Examination) in the year 2010 and secured 704 marks in the written test which according to him were the highest in Sindh (Urban) of that year. However he failed in the viva voce/interview since he was awarded only 88 marks which were below the aggregate of 100 marks required for passing the same. Hence he could not cross the threshold for passing the CSS Examination for the said year. Being aggrieved, he filed a representation under section 7(3)(a) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 (the Ordinance) which was declined. His review against the said decision also failed. Petitioner thereafter preferred an Appeal before the learned High Court which was allowed and it was held that the petitioner was fit for appointment as a civil servant in the Central Superior Service and accordingly respondents were directed to issue an appointment letter within a fortnight. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a Petition for leave to appeal before this Court bearing No.263 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 26-5-2012 remanding the matter back to the Commission for decision afresh on his review application after hearing the petitioner as no reasons were given for dismissing the same. In pursuance of the said Order the petitioner filed a fresh review application dated 9-5-2012. He was heard in person on 5-6-2012 and yet again the same was dismissed vide Memorandum dated 10-7-2012. Petitioner again approached the learned High Court against the said Memorandum which as observed also did not bear any fruit and hence this petition.

3. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner has firstly submitted that out of four members of the Interview Board, three have given him 105, 100 and 95 marks respectively whereas the fourth member has given him 50 marks only. Consequently petitioner failed the interview as he could not reach the threshold of 100 marks since his average marks were only 88 and was declared as failed in the interview. According to learned Advocate Supreme Court per note for the guidance of members of the interview board under the heading Procedure at the Interview "General", the assessment of a candidate at the interview is the collective responsibility of the Board and of its Members taken together. Hence if one Member has not passed him in the interview and all the other three have, then, it cannot be said that the petitioner had failed the interview as views of the majority should be taken into consideration and not that of an individual Member of the Board. His second contention is that though the guidelines are not statutory in nature yet they should have been followed by the Members of the panel which has not been done since marks had not been separately allocated to the petitioner under paragraph-3 of the guidelines which enumerates essential qualities of the candidate which should be kept in mind during the interview itself i.e. intellectual caliber, personality, emotional quotient, communication skills, leadership abilities and analytical ability. This lapse per learned Advocate Supreme Court has resulted in the violation of a vested right enunciated by the guidelines. For this proposition learned Advocate Supreme Court has cited The Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Shah and others (PLD 2001 SC 176) and Muhammad Yusuf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 1981 SC 224).

4. Learned Advocate Supreme Court has further submitted that this Court while remanding the matter back to the Commission has directed that a proper hearing should be given to the petitioner and thereafter a reasoned order be passed which has not been done.

5. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court and perused the record with his assistance.

6. It is an admitted position that although the petitioner had cleared the written examination but he had failed in the interview/viva voce which was a pre-condition before he could be appointed as a member of the Central Superior Service of Pakistan. It would be seen that the written test is designed essentially to gauge a candidate's familiarity with the subjects which he has chosen to offer for this purpose plus his power of expression etc. Hence the written test does not gauge the personality of the candidate or his communication skills or his leadership or decision making abilities which are left to be examined at the time of interview. The Central Superior Service of Pakistan is not merely any type of service but should only admit such persons in its fold who have a well rounded personality, a grasp over national and international affairs, balanced sense of judgment, maturity and stability, good communication skills and leadership as well as decision making abilities. This is for the simple reason that very important matters of the State and the country are entrusted to the members of the Central Superior Service and if persons of low intellectual quality or feeble personalities enter the same, the entire country suffers. When the petitioner sat for the SSC Examination he knew very well that not only did he have to pass the written test (which he did) but also the interview in which he failed. Essentially an interview is a subjective test and it is not possible for a Court of law to substitute its own opinion for that of the Interview Board in order to give the petitioner relief. What transpired at the interview and what persuaded one member of the Board to award him only 50 marks is something which a Court of law is certainly not equipped to probe and to that extent we cannot substitute our own opinion with that of the Interview Board. Obviously if any mala fides or bias or for that matter error of judgment were floating on the surface of the record we would have certainly intervened as Courts of law are more familiar with such improprieties rather than dilating into question of fitness of any candidate for a particular post which as observed above is subjective matter and can best be assessed by the functionaries who are entrusted with this responsibility, in the present case, the Public Service Commission. For this proposition the case of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division v. Ghulam Shabbir Jiskani (2011 SCMR 1198) can be referred to. In view of the foregoing observations, we cannot agree with Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa that the Interview Board did not act according to the guidelines or that just because three members had passed the petitioner therefore the views of the fourth member should not be taken into account who had failed him, for the simple reason that per the conditionalities of the CSS Examination, a candidate had to achieve a minimum of 100 marks in the interview in order to be declared successful which the petitioner failed to do.

7. With regard to Mr. Bajwa's contention that the Commission had not passed a reasoned order on the second review application filed by the petitioner when the matter was remanded back by this Court, suffice it to say that we have perused the decision of the Commission on such review application and find that the same contains valid reasons and cogent grounds for dismissal of the same and to that extent cannot be faulted. In sum, the stand of the Commission is that the CSS Examination is composed of two parts i.e. written and interview and in order to be appointed to the service, a candidate has to clear both of them. So also it has been maintained that there was no bias or mala fides on the part of any of the Members of the Commission as none could be pointed out and it was not enough to allege the same.

8. For all the foregoing reasons we find that this petition has no merit and hence same is dismissed and leave declined. MH/M-55/SC Petition dismissed.