Equality before law

Employees of any organization are entitled under Art. 4 of the Constitution to equality before law and same relief / treatment has to be given to other similarly placed employees.

Principle of equality before the law was a basic norm of every legal system, and a stepping stone to access the realm of fundamental rights

No distinction between the citizens / persons was permissible regarding dispensation of law and enforcement thereof, except through a classification/ identification of a particular category or class, formed on the basis of intelligible differentia - distinguishing the persons or things from other category of persons or things consciously missed out.

Scope.

Candidate moved application for re-checking of answer sheet but same was dismissed by the Education Board on the ground that grand total of answer sheet had correctly been calculated and no portion had been left un-marked

Candidate filed writ petition with the plea that his paper had not rightly been marked by the Examiner which was accepted with the direction to the Education Board to re-evaluate the paper through an academician of high repute

Validity

Application by the candidate was processed and paper was re-checked in his presence but nothing was found wrong on re-checking

No provision was available in the Board Calendar for re-evaluating, re-checking or re-marking of the paper

High Court was influenced by the marks sheet of the candidate which showed that he had secured more than 90% marks in the other subjects

No direction in deviation of statutory provisions of law could be issued on sympathetic ground which might affect the rights of other students

Right of equality before law was available to every citizen of the State and nobody could be discriminated

Same Examiner had checked the papers of other students and no objection had been brought on record by any other student with regard to marking

Candidate could not be singled out while giving the relief which could not be extended beyond the rules and regulations

High Court while issuing the direction in the impugned judgment had travelled beyond the statutory provision of law

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir amended R. 19 of Revised Leave Rules, 1983 whereby entitlement of leave encashment for 180 days was substituted by 365 days with effect from 01-09-2013

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council adopted the said amendment but with effect from 01-07-2012

Petitioners being employees of different departments of Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir were extended benefit of leave encashment with effect from 01-09-2013

Petitioners (employees of different departments) contended that they had been discriminated

High Court set aside the impugned notification to the extent of having effect from 01-09-2013

Validity

All State subjects were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection of law if they were similarly placed

Different set of laws regarding different pay and privileges were applicable to the employees of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council as well as Azad Government

Federal Government Rules of Business, 1973 had been adopted by the Council for running its business whereas Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 and Rules made thereunder had been adopted by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government for regulation, induction and promotion of its employees

Employees of Council as well as Azad Government were not similarly placed in circumstances

Azad Government had its own sources of payment of salaries whereas the Council employees received pay and privileges from the Council budget

Rule of equality had to be considered in the light of circumstances of each case

Equality before law on the basis of which impugned notification had been set aside was not attracted in the present case

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Although no singular standard of reasonableness could be deduced for such classification, it must be such that could be justified on an intelligible differentia identifying why the classification/distinction had been made and there must be a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the classification.

Teachers of prison department seeking up-gradation of post at par with their counterpart working in the education department

Equality before law

Scope

Contention of petitioners-employees was that government had time and again upgraded the posts of employees working in the education department and petitioners had been discriminated

Validity

Petitioners-employees were performing same functions having same qualification and job description as the teachers of education department

When no difference with regard to qualifications, duties, functions and responsibilities existed then denying them similar treatment/perks and privileges as available to other set of employees working in education department would offend the principle of equality

Petitioners were directed by the High Court to be given the same grade and treatment as had been given to the similarly placed employees of education department

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners were holders of Diploma in Associate Engineer (DAE) and sought direction to Pakistan Engineering Council to grant admission in BSc. Engineering on open merit

Pakistan Engineering Council stated that petitioners were not qualified to seek admission on open merit as they fell into 2% reserved seats category

Discrimination

Validity

Provisions of S.25-A of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 did not show that governing body was authorized to restrict number of seats of diploma holders of Associate Engineering for purposes of admission in relevant engineering programs offered by universities/institutes on open merit

Power of governing body had been regulated through a statutory provision leaving no scope of unfettered and arbitrary powers to make regulations

Fixation of maximum 2% seats for DAE was discriminatory in nature while jeopardizing rights of petitioners

Principle on which doctrine of equality was founded was that persons in similar circumstances were to be governed by same laws

Assumption that circumstances were similar for whole society held good only in case of laws which operate equally on all persons in realm and such laws were founded by experience to be wholly inadequate to cover all activity of society

Established practice was to supplement body of general laws with special laws

Fixation of maximum 2% seats for candidates who had passed examination of Diploma of Associate Engineer was declared ultra vires the Constitution

High Court declared letter issued by governing body of Pakistan Engineering Council with regards to fixation of reserved seats for DAE as illegal and without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Scope.

Reasonable classification could be made provided that it was founded on an 'intelligible differentia' which distinguished persons or things which were grouped together from those left out of group

All similarly placed citizens were to be treated equally and not otherwise

Law could restrict human rights but only in order to make conflicting rights compatible or to protect the rights of other persons or important community interest.

No State Subject otherwise qualified for appointment in service should be discriminated against with regard to any appointment on the ground of only race, religion, caste or sex.

Equal protection of law did not envisage that all citizens should be treated in all circumstances as equal rather it would contemplate that person similarly placed were to be treated alike

Equality of persons did not mean that all laws/rules must apply to all the subjects or that all the subjects must have same rights and liabilities

No discrimination could be made on the basis of sex but State might make any special provision of law for the protection of women and children.

Contention of petitioner was that respondent did not fulfill the criteria for appointment as Director General Pakistan Sports Board and his appointment was without any advertisement

Validity

Proceedings in the present constitutional petition were of quo warranto which were not strictly adversarial in nature and it was not necessary that person seeking writ of quo warranto must be "aggrieved"

Question of locus standi of petitioner was immaterial

Respondent had failed to bring on record any disqualification of the petitioner

Post reserved for direct recruitment under the rules should be filled in on the recommendations of selection committees

Direct recruitment should be made from the market only after necessary advertisement professional test and interview

Qualification and experience for appointment as Director General Pakistan Sports Board was left upon the decision of the appointing authority

Respondent was an employee of Sports Board and he was posted as Director General on current charge basis till finalization of the promotion process

Rules did not provide any such post and said post was alien to the post mentioned in Pakistan Sports Board Service Rules, 2000

Pakistan Sports Board had authority to introduce amendment but no such amendment was ever brought

Respondent was officiating as Director General Pakistan Sports Board on acting charge basis before issuance of his notification for appointment

Government was bound to fill the post of Director General Pakistan Sports Board by way of direct recruitment through publicity and advertisement in order to bring harmony and transparency in the matter of appointment to a public office

Respondent was inducted as Director General Pakistan Sports Board without due process of law and in a non-transparent and collusive manner

Appointment of respondent would offend the rights of equality and abrogate the principles enshrined in Art.27 of the Constitution

Appointment to such post could only be made after proper advertisement and after inviting applications from eligible candidates by holding selection through Board or Committee of experts specially constituted for the purpose

Tendency of the State machinery adopting the course of favoritism and nepotism in appointment of holder of public offices would ultimately result into failure of organs of the State

Courts were bound to curb such tendency with the mandate of Constitution

Appointment of respondent as Director General Pakistan Sports Board was in violation of law and public interest, which was declared as without lawful authority and relevant notification was set aside

Post of Director General Pakistan Sports Board was declared to be vacant which should be filled by the competent authority in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Similarly placed persons could not be treated differently as doing so would render any action or order as void, arbitrary and illegal.

Contention of petitioners was that their posts had not been upgraded and allowances for the employees of subordinate judiciary in Pakistan and employees of all the departments of Azad Jammu and Kashmir were receiving privileges on the basis of parity with Pakistan

Validity

Service Tribunal could not give direction under S.4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973

High Court was the proper forum for any direction if required to be issued

Government had upgraded the posts of employees of other departments but the employees of subordinate judiciary had not been given the same benefit

Rules for appointment for the employees of other departments and subordinate judiciary were also the same

Posts for the employees of district judiciary could not be upgraded due to different nomenclature which were equivalent to the posts of employees of other departments

Government had not denied the claim of the petitioners

Government was directed to upgrade the posts of petitioners in accordance with law

Job of petitioners and similarly placed other employees was same with their counterpart in the Punjab

Petitioners had been treated discriminatory and action of Government was also against the principle of equality before law

Staff of subordinate judiciary in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir was entitled to the enhancement of allowances as had been granted to the staff of subordinate judiciary in the Pakistan

Writ petition was accepted accordingly.

State Transport Corporation ("Corporation") floated a tender for supply of tyres, tubes and flaps specifying certain pre- qualification criteria

Said pre-qualification criteria stated that only those tyre manufacturers who had supplied a minimum average of 5000 sets of tyres, tubes and flaps set per annum, in the preceding three years to any of the heavy goods/passenger vehicles/chassis manufacturers in the country were eligible to participate, and that the firm should have minimum average annual turnover of Rs.500 crores in the preceding three years from the sale of tyres, tubes and flaps

Grievance of the appellant-company was that the pre-qualification criteria of the tender in question was unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and opposed to public interest in general, and that said conditions were incorporated to exclude the appellant-company and other similarly situated companies from the tender process on wholly extraneous grounds which was unfair, discriminatory and unsustainable in law

Writ petition filed by appellant-company challenging the pre-qualification criteria of the tender was dismissed by the High Court, and appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed by Division Bench of High Court

Validity

Government and its undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if they were arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere

Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it felt that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical

Corporation, in the present case, had highlighted that the tender conditions were stipulated by way of policy decision after due deliberation; that said conditions were imposed with a view to obtain good quality materials from reliable and experienced suppliers, and that the quality of the tyres played a major role in providing safe and comfortable transportation facility to the commuters

Pursuant to the tender notice, seven bids were received including that of the appellant-company

Successful bidders entered into contracts with the Corporation, effected the supplies and completed the contract and the Corporation also made payments to the successful bidders

Appellant-company failed to establish that conditions set out in the tender were contrary to public interest and were discriminatory or unreasonable

Corporation thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be of a high standard and only those manufacturers who satisfied the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender

Committee of the Corporation, consisting of experienced persons, set the tender conditions after taking into account various aspects including the safety of the passengers and public interest

Impugned conditions could not be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or based on mala fide

No valid ground existed for interference in reasoning of the High Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Basic requirement of fundamental right of equality before law was fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance was the heartbeat of fair play

State actions were amenable to judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose

Where the State acted within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities.

Writ petition was supported with affidavit but the respondents who had to make payment neither appeared nor filed written statement or counter affidavit

Writ petition supported by affidavit could be rebutted only by filing counter affidavit

Writ petition was accepted and Authority was directed to pay all the dues according to price adjustment formula.

Executive order would be arbitrary, if same discriminated among certain classes and was not founded upon reasonable grounds.

Hallmark of Islamic Injunctions is principle of equality before law and equal protection of law for all people, irrespective of their gender, colour or creed and there is no concept of discrimination in administration of justice between one person and another on any basis

No human being can be denied or deprived of any fundamental right, in social and legal perspectives, nor any judicial right can be reserved for any particular group on external consideration of his wealth, status, caste, colour or any other ground

Equality before law and equal protection of law is the cardinal principle, which runs like golden chord in all Injunctions of Islam.

Hallmark of Islamic Injunctions is principle of equality before law and equal protection of law for all people, irrespective of their gender, colour or creed and there is no concept of discrimination in administration of justice between one person and another on any basis

No human being can be denied or deprived of any fundamental right, in social and legal perspectives, nor any judicial right can be reserved for any particular group on external consideration of his wealth, status, caste, colour or any other ground

Equality before law and equal protection of law is the cardinal principle, which runs like golden chord in all Injunctions of Islam.

Suo motu action by the Supreme Court under Art.184(3) of the Constitution regarding allegation of business deal between a businessman and son of the serving Chief Justice of Pakistan attempting to influence the judicial process

Equality before law

Scope

Openness and transparency in the full glare of an open court hearing with equal opportunity to the two sides, was one of the defining features of the legal system

People could rightfully demand such openness and transparency as their right

Supreme Court observed that hearings of the present case had given it an opportunity to demonstrate and make it absolutely clear that in Pakistan, no one was above the law; that even the highest constitutional functionaries, and their kith and kin, could not but submit themselves and their affairs to the law, and that everyone must know that howsoever high and mighty a person might be, the law was higher and mightier.

Courts of law were not supposed to apply different yardsticks to persons hailing from different strata of society be that even government officials.