P L D 2012 Lahore 213 (PLP)

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

This judgment shall decide Writ Petitions Nos. 6651, 4913, 6360, 5994 and 5724 of 2011 involving a common question of law.

2. The petitioners sat for the written examination for the posts of Assistant District Public Prosecutor (BS-17) ("ADPP") in the year 2008. That examination comprised of three law papers covering diverse subjects in the discipline of law, one paper in English language and one in General Knowledge. The petitioners, like 95% of the other candidates, failed that examination. The next written examination for ADPPs held in the year 2010 by the PPSC was set on a narrower syllabus offering only two law papers, one subjective and the other objective and deleting the other three papers. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that quite apart from two non-law papers that were dropped in the year 2010, the law subject papers in the 2010 examination were confined to criminal law practice areas. On the other hand, the three law papers set in the year 2008 also covered certain civil law practice subjects. These include: Limitation Act, 1908, The West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, Law of Conveyance and Pleadings. The criminal law subjects that were included in 2008 examination syllabus but were dropped in the 2010 examination include: The Police Order, 2002, High Court Rules and Orders (Volume-III), The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadud) Ordinance, 1979, The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadud) Ordinance, 1979, The Offence of Qazaf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.

3. The reason for comparing the syllabi of the two examinations is made by the learned counsel for the petitioners because under Regulation No.39 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2000 ("Regulations") a candidate gets three opportunities to pass a written examination. In the present case, the petitioners have exhausted those three chances if their attempt in 2008 is counted. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 2008 examination cannot be included in the count because it was set for a completely different standard of learning and capacity than the two or three subsequent examinations of 2010 that were competed by the petitioners.

4. Out of 952 candidates only 46 candidates had passed the written examination in 2008. The respondents realized their mistake and changed the syllabus in the year 2010 when three examinations were set at a diminished standard of learning and capacity for testing candidates for the post of ADPP. On account of the change in syllabus of the 2008 written examination, he prays that the same should be considered as having been abandoned by the PPSC and the Administrative Department, because the change admits to a wrong standard of testing being applied to ADPP candidates.

5. The learned Addl. A.G. has opposed the prayer on the ground that the Regulations do not make any distinction between the chances availed by a candidate on the basis of the respective syllabus of PPSC written examinations taken by such candidate. He submits that such a distinction would open the floodgates to litigation because the PPSC may be called upon by failed candidates to provide past syllabus of the same examination for disputing results and hence Regulation No.39. However, insofar as the factual matrix is concerned, the learned Addl. A.G. does not dispute that the 2008 written examination represents an unsuccessful effort by the PPSC and the Provincial Government to recruit ADPPs.

6. Heard. The factual background and context in the case is admitted. It is also accepted by the respondents that the level of testing in the 2008 entrance examination for ADPPs was substantially reduced in the 2010 examination both in terms of the scope and complexity of the test. As a result less than 5% of candidates who sat for the examination were successful in passing it. As a result of reduced standard for testing of candidates in the 2010 examinations, the pass percentage of candidates rose dramatically making substantive recruitment for the Administrative Department to be possible. It is also common ground that the Administrative Department changed the syllabus for the written examination on the recommendation of Full Commission of the PPSC. The revised subjects announced on 11-1-2010 include the following papers, namely, English Essay, Law-I (subjective) and Law-II (objective). The PPSC and Provincial Government shortly afterwards again revised the syllabus of the examination by eliminating the English Essay paper. It is obvious, that the respondents were not satisfied with administering the original standard of testing which failed a large number of candidates leading to meagre recruitment and thereby prejudicing the functioning of the respondent Prosecution Department.

7. The relevant regulation No.39 of the Regulations provides as follows:-- "All candidates (private or in-service) appearing in written examination" to be held by the Commission shall be allowed to avail of three chances only for each particular written Examination irrespective of the type or categories of posts grouped in that Examination, unless otherwise prescribed by the Government. This will be subject to the condition that candidates fulfill all other requirements of the rules. In case, age relaxation has been allowed, only one chance shall be given." Also under the Regulation: "Written examination means an examination prescribed by a competent authority for specified jobs either in the relevant service rules or as general policy."

8. The joint reading of the above said provisions of the Regulations show that sitting for a written examination that is prescribed by the competent authority constitutes an opportunity availed by a candidate. To the mind of the Court, if the prescribed course for the written examination has been substantially curtailed in its scope and complexity then such a change alters the level and quality of the examination prescribed. The meaning of PPSC Regulation No.39 is that a candidate should get a limited number of chances to seek competitive selection. The said limitation necessarily imports the requirement that a candidate would be tested at a uniform and consistent level. To give an example, it would be unfair and unjust that an entrance examination set at the masters degree level of learning should be equated with an other examination that tests the undergraduate degree level of learning. In such a case, a candidate in the first examination would be justified in complaining that he has been put to an inconsistent and excessive standard of test and therefore has been treated unfairly.

9. The respondents are public functionaries performing duties under law. One of the salient duties of their office is to conduct themselves fairly and consistently. On account of the fact that the Full Commission of the PPSC unanimously recommended revision of the syllabus of the written examination for ADPPs to make it easier, the support received for such a proposal by the Provincial Government and the revision of the syllabus from a wide scope to limited subjects concerned with the professional duties to be performed by ADPPs, are matters that indicate that the first 2008 examination administered by the PPSC was an exception and not a part of a consistent testing scheme enforced by the PPSC for selection of ADPPs. I am reinforced in this conclusion by the fact that the 2008 examination is the first examination held by the PPSC under the provisions of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006. This examination had exposed certain defects, which were corrected through experience and implemented in the subsequent examinations. Accordingly, it would be fair and just that the first 2008 examination is treated as an aberration and an exception and not as an opportunity/chance availed by the petitioners for purposes of PPSC Regulation No.39.

10. Petitions allowed in the above terms. M.H./F-5/L Petition allowed.