Criteria

In determining whether an individual qualifies as a servant under breadth of statutory protections available under the S. 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the courts are to look beyond the initial form of appointment to the substance of the service relationship

The criteria includes (i) holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Province, (ii) serving under an organization governed by provincial law; (iii) receiving remuneration from the public exchequer through a sanctioned budget; and (iv) being subject to the hierarchical control and service rules of a government department.

Petitioner was aggrieved of rejection of his application to proceed on Haj in the capacity of Moavineen-e-Hujjaj for performing welfare duties on the basis of attaining qualifying marks

Validity

Petitioner submitted application without providing mandatory documents including NOC and medical fitness certificate, thereby concealing relevant facts

Petitioner was employee of an autonomous body which did not fall under administrative control of any Ministry or Division as per Rules of Business, 1973

Petitioner moved application after accepting all terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement and undertook to comply with all policies and instructions issued by authorities

Petitioner failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the advertisement published by authorities warranting interference by High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners (bank employees serving as AVP, OG-I) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court seeking directions against the respondents (Bank/Employer) to expunge their Rating-C from the Annual Performance Appraisals (APRs), and to upgrade / restore Rating-A

Validity

Record revealed that the grading of petitioners had been lowered by the countersigning authority but while lowering their grading, they had not been given any adverse entries in their APRs

It was just a matter of grading good or excellent for which they had provided Grades from 1 to 5 in their APR System

None of the entries in the APRs of both the petitioners could be termed as adverse entry

How much better performance had been delivered by which of the employees was supposed to be judged by the Institute itself

Immediate Appraisal Officer had, no doubt, given better grading to both the petitioners but the countersigning authority also had its due role in the APR devised and adopted by the Bank

While adopting APR they had provided a sort of competitive mechanism, where employees in the bank were supposed to be tested on the touchstone provided therein

Bank/respondents had given structured policy for APR of their officers wherein different Bank Officers (General Managers, Regional Head, Group Chiefs) had been assigned different roles/responsibilities, and in such process/roles, none of the fundamental rights of the petitioners were found violated

Petitioners did not have vested right to be retained in same category in which report of the immediate supervisor had placed them

Criteria devised was of such a nature that the same had been competitive and performance was to be comparatively evaluated at functional levels

In such a process, finality would naturally be attached to the valuation conducted at the office of functional Group Chiefs at Head Office

No mala fide or ill-will could be pointed out by the petitioners

None of their fundamental or legally justiciable right was found violated

Categorization of petitioners had also been according to APR System

Appraisal of the bank officers was internal matter of the bank in which the High Court could not interfere in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition filed by the bank Officers , was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner (candidate for admission in medical and dental colleges for the session 2022-23) filed constitutional petition challenging a Public Notice issued by PMC which was to the effect that candidates who passed their F.Sc (Pre-Medical)/HSSC or equivalent exam last year (2021) and were now applying for MDCAT for the session 2022-23, only their elective subject marks and percentage would be considered for merit calculation for admission in medical and dental colleges for the session 2022-23

Argument of the petitioner was that in processing her candidature for admission by non-inclusion of her marks for the compulsory subjects would be discriminatory as the candidates who took F.Sc in 2022 would get their marks in Urdu, English, Islamic Education and Pakistan Studies also reflected in calculation of 40% weightage being given to F.Sc as per regulations whereas in her case as well as other students who did F.Sc in 2021 this would not be done and score in elective subjects only would be taken which was unfair

Validity

Argument of the petitioner on the face of it was fallacious; in fact if accepted it would create a case of discrimination for the applicants who were intending to be considered for admission on the basis of F.Sc held in 2022 when the Covid-19 pandemic policy was no longer in vogue and papers were actually held and taken for the subjects of Urdu, English, Islamic Education and Pakistan Studies and marks were based on performance of these students in the examination in those subjects whereas in the case of petitioner marks were given in all these subjects on the basis of Covid-19 pandemic and she did not actually take these papers

Admittedly, the petitioner was eligible to apply last year for admission in session 2021-22 which she had not done due to her own reasons

All admissions with respect to candidates of F.Sc in 2021 were processed strictly on the basis of elective subjects only and the score policy applied to all candidates from that year who would be seeking admission in session 2022-23 which was a separate and distinctive category as no examinations were held in the compulsory subjects in their case which was applied across the board within that category and no instance of exception was claimed or alleged by the petitioner in said regard

Regarding objection of the petitioner that the regulations required 40% weightage qua the F.Sc score and that the policy was violative thereof, the regulation was couched in general terms and did not specify as to how that weightage of F.Sc score would be actually calculated

By notification dated 30.6.2021 said calculation of merit qua the F.Sc score was specifically limited to only the elective subjects as they were the only subjects in which examinations were actually held and taken and the petitioner fell in the same category which was covered by the said notification

Expectation that the constitutional jurisdiction may be pressed into service as expressed is not admissible which will have the effect of reshaping the modality structured by the regulatory body in its statutory role to equitably and reasonably attend to the subject-matter in given circumstances that squarely fell in its regulatory domain

Calculation of merit is a very serious matter in general and goes to the heart of informing the basis of proper distribution of limited resources in terms of goods and services

In present case it was entry/seats in medical education

Observance of merit is all the more pivotal to professional education as eventually the products thereof are required to deal with sensitive matters having potentially far-reaching effects on human lives and society

Such determination is best made on the basis of actual performance of the candidates and no undue advantage would be accorded to any person to the exclusion of others in such process without offending settled principles of good governance

In the present case, the score of the petitioner in the compulsory subjects, which she insisted to be included, would clearly put her at an unfair advantage and the applicants with F.Sc completed in 2022 at an unfair disadvantage, as the score of the latter category was based on a result of actual examinations held whereas her (petitioner's) result was based on fictional score

Even petitioner's submission (that such criteria shall also be made in the case of matriculation which is not being done) was entirely extraneous to the controversy at hand as her insistence was on inclusion of unearned score of F.Sc in consideration of her merit for session 2022-23 whereas she took her matriculation well before Covid-19 and qua her case matriculation examination had no material bearing

Policy-decision of PMC to the extent represented by the Public Notice as such fully stood to reason and suffered from no inherent or illegal discriminatory feature being based on tenable classification and, therefore, warranted no interference in extraordinary constitutional and discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Punjab Communication and Works Department (Engineering Posts Qualification and Conditions Recruitment) Rules, 1985, [as amended vide Notification No. SOR-III(S&GAD)1-11/2020(A) dated 04-09-2021]

Post of Executive Engineer in Communication and Works Department

Entitlement for promotion

Criteria

Notification No. SOR-III(S&GAD)1-11/2020(A) dated 04-09-2021 ('the Notification'), vires of

Constitutional petition challenging the Notification

Maintainability

Petitioners (Sub-Divisional Officers) professional / registered engineers having qualified from accredited universities, who expected to be promoted to the next higher post of Executive Engineer, challenged the Notification

Official Respondents (Government / Department raised objection regarding Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court regarding subject matter

Held, that objection regarding constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was misconceived as the High court could pass order on the subject matter

Thus, constitutional petition, in the present case, was maintainable

High Court set aside the impugned Notification No. SOR-III(S&GAD)1-11/2020(A) dated 04-09-2021 for being without lawful authority

Constitutional petition filed by Sub-Divisional Officers (professional / registered engineers), was allowed, in circumstances.

Punjab Communication and Works Department (Engineering Posts Qualification and Conditions Recruitment) Rules, 1985 [as amended vide Notification No. SOR-III(S&GAD)1-11/2020(A) dated 04-09-2021]

Post of Executive Engineer in Communication and Works Department

Entitlement for promotion

Criteria

Qualification

Whether degree obtained from accredited universities or degrees of B.Tech (Hons) or BS Engineering Technology

Notification No. SOR-III(S&GAD)1-11/2020(A) dated 04-09-2021 vires of

Petitioners (Sub-Divisional Officers) having qualification of professional / registered engineers obtained from accredited universities, who expected to be promoted to the next higher post of Executive Engineer, challenged the Notification

Contention of the petitioners was that by amendments made in the Punjab Communication and Works Department (Engineering Posts Qualification and Conditions Recruitment) Rules, 1985 ('the Rules 1985') 5% quota to the post of Executive Engineer was reserved for Sub-Divisional Officers (Assistant Engineers/Directors) holding B.Tech (Hons) or BS Engineering Technology ,thus diluting the earlier 100% seats reserved for the petitioners under the Rules

Validity

Record revealed that, regarding present issue, a meeting of Qualification Equivalence Determination Committee (QEDC) had taken place ,having participants from all stake-holders; minutes of which (meeting) revealed that the meeting, inter alia, unanimously held that the degree of B.Tecch (Hons) was not similar to B.E./BSc Engineering and could not be equated with the same as the contents of both the degrees were altogether different

Post of Executive Engineer could only be filled up by persons who had a degree in Engineering in the requisite discipline from a recognized University and equivalent qualification and was registered as a professional engineer with Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC)

Thus, the Official Respondents (Government/Department) had no authority to change the criteria for granting a right of promotion to persons who did not qualify the same in terms of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975

Official respondents could not dispute that only a professional engineer , having the requisite qualification, could be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer

High Court set aside the impugned Notification No. SOR-III(S&GAD)1-11/2020(A) dated 04-09-2021 for being without lawful authority

Constitutional petition filed by Sub Divisional Officers (professional / registered engineers), was allowed, in circumstances.

In exercising its discretion the Court should consider numerous factors such as minimum and maximum sentence which can be imposed on conviction, the role of the accused, and the gravity of the offence, the amount of loss caused to the State, whether the accused shows any kind of remorse, whether the accused is capable of reformation, the age of the accused, the health of the accused, his conduct in jail and how long he has already spent in jail etc.

Contention of the petitioners (Sindh Bar Council and several of its then office-bearers) that in terms of Arts. 177 & 193 of the Constitution, practicing advocates with relevant experience are qualified to be appointed as Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan and the respective High Courts, however, the qualification in terms of R. 3(1) has been tailor made so as to limit eligibility to the retired judges of Supreme Court, thus the qualification is unreasonably restrictive and discriminatory violating Art. 25 of the Constitution

Held, that the R. 3(1) of the Appointment of Chairman and Members Qualifications Rules, 2016, does not give rise to a violation of Art. 25 of the Constitution or of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and even the scope thereof is considered to be restricted and a more expansive qualification criteria is regarded as desirable, which is a matter to be considered by the competent authority and does not of itself affect the vires of the Rule, and neither such alleged defect nor the setting aside of the Rule on that basis would even otherwise constitute a ground for the Impugned Notification to be struck down so as to displace the incumbent Chairman

Moreover albeit that S. 9 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, on which reliance has been placed in the present petition, envisages one of the functions of a Provincial Bar Council to promote and suggest law reforms, without presently dilating on the scope thereof

Recourse to Art. 199 of the Constitution is not necessarily the appropriate means of performing that function

Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

In case of non-selection post, promotion is based upon seniority-cum-fitness and no employee can ask for or claim a promotion as a matter of right, as it is within the exclusive domain of competent authority

Neither promotion can take place automatically nor the seniority alone is the deciding factor, as a number of factors constitute fitness for promotion.

For testing vires of legislative instrument, the only criteria is Constitutional provisions and fundamental rights therein

Such criteria can be found embedded in Art.8 of the Constitution

Unreasonableness or other grounds available for judging an act done in executive capacity or through subordinate legislation have not been valid grounds for testing validity of valid piece of legislation competently enacted.

Eligibility primarily related to the terms and conditions of service and their applicability to the civil servants, whereas question of fitness was a subjective evaluation on the basis of objective criteria

Section 9(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, stipulated that civil servant had a right to be considered for promotion if eligible on account of possessing the prescribed minimum qualification etc.

Civil servant had no vested right to be promoted

Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, contemplated that civil servant who was aggrieved with respect of the terms and conditions of the service had right to file appeal before appropriate tribunal established for such purposes within prescribed period

Law did not provide any remedy of appeal or representation in view of S.22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, for determination of fitness of a civil servant to be promoted to a higher post

Petitioners had, therefore, no right to appeal or representation against the impugned recommendation of authorities for the promotion

In view of the specific bar contained in Cl. (b) of proviso to S.4(1) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 , the petitioners lacking adequate efficacious remedy, therefore, had a right to seek the constitutional remedy

Constitutional petition was, thus not violative to the mandate of Arts. 199 & 212 of the Constitution and was maintainable.

While considering the case of promotion on seniority-cum-fitness, the question of eligibility and fitness had to be determined

While eligibility could be determined on the basis of terms and conditions of service, the question of fitness was always based upon subjective evaluation on objective criteria, and such exercise had been left to be conducted by the competent authority in the department

Competent authority while exercising its discretion in determining the case of fitness or otherwise of a government servant for being promoted to hold higher post should not conduct itself arbitrarily or in colourable exercise but consider the question of fitness based upon reasons, fairly and justly.

Irrigation Department limited the constructors' qualification only to the extent of experience in construction of dams completed over ten years

Contention of petitioners was that criteria notified by the Irrigation Department was contrary to the criteria laid down by Pakistan Engineering Council

Validity

Employer might prescribe his own requirement for pre-qualification of constructors or operators to assess the financial soundness, plant and equipment capability and previous experience and specific expertise, which was essential for the execution of the work to eliminate constructors not suitably qualified to perform high value contract and to encourage realistic bids by the bidders

Project of similar nature and complexity did mean the project having resemblance in appearance, basic features, characteristic, qualities and complication similar to the project to be executed but not exactly the same

Eligibility criteria for pre-qualification of constructors should be based upon the guidelines of Pakistan Engineering Council

If a constructor had completed a project with regard to which skill, effort and responsibility were similar and performed under the similar working condition as required for the project to be executed then such experience should be taken into consideration while considering the pre-qualification proceeding provided that the project already completed and the project intended to be executed were of same discipline and falling under same code

Required criteria for the project in question was not only illogical but also against the basic aim and object of pre-qualification

Criteria fixed by the irrigation department would not only deprive constructors from participating in the bid proceedings of current project but it would disqualify those in future who were otherwise legally entitled to perform similar nature of works

If any applicant had failed to fulfil one of the conditions of any category of criteria then he should not be disqualified merely that he did not fulfil the specific component rather the marks fixed for said items should not be assigned to it

Applicant must meet the minimum criteria and should obtain 50% score in each category to qualify for participation in the bid proceedings

If constructor or operator had secured marks fixed for rest of the items then same should be calculated and if it was liable to secure 50% or more marks then same should be considered accordingly

Authority had power to relax required period of experience for execution of project of similar nature to provide an opportunity to the maximum number of qualified constructors and operators

Irrigation Department was directed to follow the guidelines in accordance with Pakistan Engineering Council Bylaws while assessing the qualifications of constructors and operators who had submitted their applications for pre-qualification

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 being a special law were only applicable firstly in cases wherein person complained against was found to be not having title thereto, secondly that he had taken possession by use of force, thirdly that he had taken over property without due course of law and fourthly that such person or persons belonged to group of land grabbers

Application/Complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 could only be entertained if there was prima facie material against nominated accused

Civil nature dispute in no way could be allowed to be converted into criminal offence

Complainant was unable to place accused persons in criteria laid down by provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Trial Court as no case for illegal dispossession was made out on the basis of available material and no illegality or irregularity was pointed out

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were appointed in Provincial Police Service and subsequently they were inducted in Police Service of Pakistan cadre

Departmental Selection Committee started process for promotion of Officers Police Service of Pakistan to BPS-19 but petitioners were not considered on the ground that they did not possess requisite length of service for promotion

Validity

According to Sl.No. 157 of Estacode, if initial appointment of an officer was made in BPS-18 and he served for a period of seven years then he would be eligible for promotion to the post of BPS-19

Officers who had served for a period of twelve years in BPS-17 and above would be eligible for promotion to BPS-19

Petitioners were appointed in BPS-17, whereafter they were promoted to BPS-18 and subsequently were inducted and encadred as Officer of Police Service of Pakistan

Encadrement in Police Service of Pakistan could not be considered as "initial appointment"

Petitioners had more than twelve years of service in BPS-17 and more than three years of service in BPS-18 and they possessed the requisite qualification and were eligible to be considered for promotion in BPS-19

Departmental Selection Committee was directed to consider the cases of petitioners for promotion in accordance with law and on merits

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Where validity of a statute or provision thereof is questioned and there are two interpretations, one which makes the law valid, is to be preferred over the other, which may render it void

Criteria before Court for determining vires of a provision of law is that the Court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that violation of Constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provision under challenge could not stand.

Where validity of a statute or provision thereof is questioned and there are two interpretations, one which makes the law valid, is to be preferred over the other, which may render it void

Criteria before Court for determining vires of a provision of law is that the Court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that violation of Constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provision under challenge could not stand.

Contention of petitioners who were contract employees was that they were entitled for regularization/ promotion against the said posts

Validity

Only 25% of the posts could be filled in through recruitment and remaining 75% posts had to be filled in through promotion

Contract employees were to be considered against 25% of the posts being available for their regularization

Permanent employees had right under the departmental Rules to be considered for promotion against available vacant seats as per the given ratio

Regular posts of the Project were subject to the departmental Rules

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Contention of petitioner was that he secured 68 marks in the competitive process for appointment whereas respondent secured only 62 marks and in interview petitioner was awarded 09 marks whereas respondent was given 18.5 marks and calculation of marks was not made in accordance with law

Validity

Marks obtained by the candidates for appointment against the said post was not the sole criteria

Eighty percent weightage had to be given for the marks obtained in written test whereas twenty percent weightage had to be given to the marks obtained in the interview

Petitioner, in the present case, had obtained 68 out of 100 marks in the written test and 9 marks out of 20 in the interview

Petitioner's marks for written test came to 54.40 and there was no need to give 20% weightage to the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview

Petitioner's total marks came to 63.40 which placed him at 4th position

Respondent obtained 62 out of 100 marks in the written test and 18.50 marks out of 20 in the interview

Respondent's marks for written test came to 49.60 and total marks came to 68.10 which placed her in the 1st position

Clearance of a written test did not by itself create any vested right in the petitioner's favour for appointment against the post in question when test was not the sole criteria for making appointment

Criteria for appointment, in the present case, against the post in question was not just a written test but also an interview

Petitioner was at serial number 4th and he could not be appointed against the said post

Respondent had assumed charge of her new appointment which by itself was a ground not to interfere with the said appointment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Promotion of employees was denied on the basis of integrity and performance known to the Members of Central Selection Board and they were placed in category "C" despite meeting the minimum threshold marks

Validity

Dispute with regard to terms and conditions of service had been excluded from the jurisdiction of all the Courts except Service Tribunals constituted for the said purpose

Question of fitness of a civil servant to be promoted had been ousted from the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

No appeal had been provided on the question of fitness of a civil servant

Present constitutional petition was maintainable as same was with regard to fitness of a person to be appointed or to hold particular post

Petitioners had achieved minimum threshold marks but they had been deferred or superseded on account of personal knowledge of Members of Central Selection Board

Five marks had been awarded to the petitioners on the basis of personal knowledge of Members of Selection Board

No adverse material was available on record on the basis of which it could be said that petitioners/civil servants did not enjoy good reputation or they did not deserve to be promoted

Central Selection Board had exercised discretion in an arbitrary and whimsical manner

Decision to defer the petitioners/civil servants or superseding them was not tenable which was set aside

Petitioners should be considered afresh based on new criteria devised by the Establishment Division pursuant to directions of Supreme Court

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner-employee was promoted and appointed as Controller Examination Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education but he was repatriated to his parent department in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court

Validity

No one had vested right to a particular post at a particular place

Post of Controller of Examination was to be filled through initial recruitment by the Controlling Authority by effecting competition

Petitioner was promoted to the post in question, therefore, he was not fresh appointee

Eligibility of a candidate had to be determined in accordance with advertisement for the post, service rules governing the appointment and any amendment or instruction backed by law

Nothing was on record that any advertisement for the post of Controller of Examination was made and subsequent proceedings were conducted

Petitioner was promoted and "not initially appointed"

No illegality, infirmity or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the department

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Employer Bank was entitled to make Rules in the interest of exigency of service and to remove anomalies in the service rules

Service Rules Committee had to determine the eligibility criteria of promotion which was an administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain and policy making of the Bank

Interference in such matters by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction was not warranted

No vested right of Bank employee was involved in the matter of promotion or the Rules determining their eligibility or fitness

High Court had no jurisdiction to strike down the policy of the employer-Bank

Policy framed by the Bank for promotion of regular employees was based on criteria viz. seniority, service in grade, professional qualification, performance relating of last three years and educational qualification

Petitioners-employees had to meet all the conditions to claim consideration for promotion

Employer -bank had to decide whether employees had met the criteria set forth for promotion or not

Employees had failed to point out any malice on the part of the Bank to warrant interference in the promotion matter under constitutional jurisdiction

Nothing was on record that policy framed by the Bank had infringed Fundamental Rights of the employees

Competent authority had jurisdiction to enhance qualification of certain posts

No vested/Fundamental Right could be claimed in seniority/promotion case as promotion would depend upon various factors which required consideration for promotion of the employees

Criteria for promotion was eligibility and fitness which could not be claimed as a matter of right

Eligibility would relate to terms and conditions of service and fitness was a subjective evaluation made on the basis of objective criteria

Competent authority had to make appointment, determine seniority, eligibility, fitness and promotion and other ancillary matters with regard to terms and conditions of employees as prescribed under the Rules

Selection, promotion and transfer of employees of Bank except that of President and decision as to their remuneration and benefits had to be made by the President of the Bank in accordance with the criteria and policies determined by the Board of Directors

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Admission of petitioner in M. Phil (Eng.) Program was cancelled by the respondent-University due to non-fulfillment of criteria of admission

Validity

Petitioner had passed M.A. (Eng.) Examination in four semesters within a duration of two years by securing 1777 marks out of 3000 in "C" grade with overall percentage of 59.23

Marks obtained by the petitioner had not been calculated on the basis of CGPA

Petitioner was allowed to appear in the first semester by the respondent-University

Power to rescind an order passed by the government or an authority was available with the concerned authority but the same could only be exercised till a decisive step in pursuance of such said order had been taken place

Vested right had accrued in favour of petitioner as decisive step had been taken by the University by allowing the petitioner to sit in the first semester

Principle of locus poenitentiae (power to rescind till a decisive step taken) was available to the University

Petitioner was granted admission by the University relying upon educational testimonials submitted by her but University had not observed due diligence

Petitioner had not committed any fraud and transcript and decree appended were genuine

Cancellation of admission at such belated stage could not be approved and the same was held to be illegal on the basis of rule of locus poenitentiae

Impugned order for cancellation of admission in M. Phil (Eng.) passed by the respondent-University was set aside and the same was declared as illegal and void

Respondent-University was directed to issue registration number to the petitioner with retrospective effect

Result of examination passed by the petitioner should be declared and she be allowed to continue course of M. Phil (Eng.) with all consequential liabilities and benefits

Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Petitioners impugned incorporation of a cut-off date for determining age of candidates in an advertisement for recruitment to certain posts issued by Punjab Public Service Commission ("PPSC")

Contention of petitioners, inter alia, was that the cut-off date of 01.01.2017 was arbitrary and discriminatory and no such date had been prescribed in the past and other advertisements issued by the Commission

Validity

Despite the fact that R.18(2) of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 provided for requirement of determining age with cut off date of 1st January, the same was not previously followed by the Commission

Petitioners could not be burdened with discriminatory treatment on account of an established practice of the Commission and the Policy Directive implementing the cut-off date of 1st January, was introduced for the first time and was never made public nor announced before the recruitment process, and therefore petitioners and other applicants were not aware of the same

High Court directed, that as a one-time exemption, in order to ensure that the petitioners were not prejudiced in any manner, that they be allowed to compete for the said posts and the cut-off date of 0.1.01.2017 for determining age would not apply

Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.

Contentions of petitioners/employees was that they fulfilled the requirements for their promotion but they had not been treated reasonably, fairly and justly

Validity

Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction on the controversy of determination of fitness and suitability of a person for a job and for promotion

Constitutional petitions were maintainable as petitioners-employees had challenged the criteria on the basis of which the fitness for promotion was determined

Civil servant had vested legal right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law

Withholding of promotion was a major penalty which could be inflicted by proceedings against a civil servant under the rules

Any action must be based on fair, open and just consideration and arbitrariness should be avoided

Decision of deferment of petitioners/employees had not been made in accordance with law

Nothing was on record as to why juniors to the petitioner/ employees were given preference over them

No opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner/employees before inflicting major penalty of withholding promotion

Impugned recommendations of Central Selection Board did not fulfill the requirements of S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897

Authority had not applied its mind while exercising its discretion to promote the employees which had resulted in pick and choose

Every individual had an inalienable right to be dealt with in accordance with law

Equal treatment of citizens had been guaranteed by the Constitution which could be denied only in peculiar circumstances of the case

Formula for giving more discretion without tangible material on point of integrity of civil servants and consequently placement in categories was against law

Authority could not be allowed to block the promotions of civil servants by arbitrary placement in category without recording any reason or referring any tangible material

Establishment Division of the Government was directed to reframe the formula by taking away the overriding effect of the marks to be awarded by Central Selection Board and categorization and place the cases before Central Selection Board within specified period

Assessment should be made on the basis of entire performance and in case of any tangible material asking question with regard to integrity of civil servant was available then he might be confronted with the same and any opinion of deferment or supersession might be made but not on the basis of hypothesis and reputation in air.

High Court enhanced compensation to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Compensation could be determined by considering the sale deeds registered during the period of one year prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Sale deed registered immediately after the issuance of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and prior to the issuance of award were also relevant for determination of compensation

Market value of the land had to be considered while keeping in view the potential of the same for use of which said land might reasonably be put in future

Suit land, in the present case, was situated within the municipal limit of city

City was a hilly area and land owners were holding small pieces of land in the city

Sale deeds with regard to smaller pieces of land were relevant for determination of market value and compensation

Land was situated in the municipal limit and had potential to be utilized for the residential as well as commercial purposes

If land owners had sold land in the open market, they would have fetched higher price as compared to the one awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition

High Court had correctly assessed the market value and awarded the compensation

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Future potential value and inflation in prices during intervening period between the issuance of notification and award was considered by the Referee Judge while determining rate of compensation but it was not clear as to how the amount had been determined

Schedule of average price for four years or for that matter even of one year were not only criterion for determination of amount of compensation but the "other material" brought on file was quite relevant to determine the correct amount of compensation for the acquired land

Amount to be paid to the owner for acquiring his land was not the price but the compensation which would always be higher than the price

Referee Court was bound to appoint local commission for determination of market value

Report of Local Commission was to be taken into consideration for determination of compensation

Average could not be relied upon in such like cases without appointment of local commission

Case was remanded to the Referee Court with the direction to appoint local commission to determine the status of property, location and future potentiality and decide the same afresh within specific period

Impugned judgment passed by the Referee Court was set aside

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Award announced by Referee Judge was increased on report of Local Commission who was appointed to ascertain market value of land in question

Validity

Market value of the land determined at the date of notification

Damages sustained by persons interested potentiality of the land and the likelihood of its development and improvement was also determining factors

Appointment of local commission was proper for the purpose of investigation or ascertainment of market value of the suit property plus mesne profit or damages and annual profits.

WAPDA being body corporate fell within the definition of company as such the appellants were entitled to 25% compulsory acquisition charges instead of 15%

WAPDA, an authority established under the Act of Parliament, being a body corporate was a company within the meaning of S. 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Acquisition charges in addition to market value of land at the rate of 25% was granted

Appeal was allowed.

Sales taken place before publication of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of similar land was merely one of the modes for ascertaining the market value and was not an absolute yardstick for assessment.

Specific allegation of preparing forged and fictitious agreement to sell by affixing forged signatures had been levelled against the petitioner which constituted cognizable offence

Ex-officio Justice of Peace did not travel beyond his jurisdiction by directing the S.H.O. to record respondent's version under S.154, Cr.P.C.

Court while taking cognizance of complaint had only to consider the existence of a prima facie case either on the basis of averments made n the complaint and the statements of complainant on oath.

High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction could look into only settled facts which were discernable on the face of the record

If facts were settled, recognizable, noticeable, transparent, obvious, palpable and floating on the face of record, might be disputed ordinarily by the other party, High Court could act upon such facts and if same were uncertain then High Court would not embark upon the same

Allegations made by the petitioner required a process recording of evidence and its deep probe was compulsory which could not be embarked upon in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had failed to pinpoint any material irregularity or lack of transparency in the selection procedure adopted by the Department for admitting the candidates for the program

Petitioner had neither collected any material nor applied to seek any information in black and white leading towards alleged wrongdoings of the department before questioning the validity of whole process

Petitioner had not provided the requisite information with regard to references of two respectable persons (Not related to the applicant)

Petitioner had not submitted complete form in all respect and did not meet eligibility requirements

No Fundamental Right of the petitioner had been violated

Petitioner could pursue his remedy before the proper forum in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Place in question should be genuinely required by the landlord in good faith which had to be established from facts of a particular case

Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises within a specified period

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendant-Company calculated gratuity on the basis of basic salary of the plaintiff-employee on the ground that his service was below 15 years of length

Contention of employee was that he was entitled to be given the gratuity on the basis of gross salary and not on the basic salary as he had served for more than 15 years in the company

Validity

Any period of service with the employer on probation subject to condition that employee was confirmed in employer's service would be included in eligible service

Employee remained in service without any break including the probationary period for a period of more than 15 years

Crucial issue was as to whether the period of probation was to be considered for claim of gratuity or not

Employee was not only a permanent employee but also was a member of the fund of the company

Once an employee had become a member, his period of probation/training would be included towards his eligible service

Eligible service would include at the end of probation if the employee was confirmed

Entire period of service of plaintiff-employee would fall within the definition of term 'eligible service'

Employee's probationary period could be considered as service under the rules of company

Plaintiff-employee had become a member of the Trust which did not impose any embargo or put any discrimination with regard to the permanent employee or otherwise

Probationary period of the plaintiff-employee under the given circumstances could be counted for calculating the gratuity

Plaintiff-employee had been made a member and he was entitled for the benefit of gratuity

Company was bound to pay the due gratuity as per terms and conditions mentioned in the Trust Deed to its employees

Rules of company were subservient to the Trust Deed

If there was controversy between the Trust Deed and the Rules, the Deed had to be given preference over the Rules

Employee was entitled to be paid gratuity which was to be calculated on gross salary basis

Revision was partly accepted, in circumstances.

Section 177, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had made it clear that the laying down of criteria for selection of any person for audit of his income tax affairs in terms of subsection (1) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was an essential pre-requisite for the Commissioner to select a person for audit

Once the Commissioner had selected a case for audit in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Central Board of Revenue, then additionally, the Commissioner could also select a person for an audit of the person's income tax affairs; having regard to the factors enumerated in clauses (a), (b) & (c) of sub-section (4) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Subsection (4) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, would come into play, when the Commissioner in the course of proceedings with the audit of a person, would discover that in addition to the selection of person, the Commissioner required to select another person for audit of income tax affairs

Such was exactly what was envisaged in subsection (4) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, wherein it was clearly mentioned that in addition to the selection referred to in subsection (2) thereof, the Commissioner could also select a person for audit of his income tax affairs

Subsection (4) of S.177, was secondary in character in relation to subsections (1) and (2)

If subsection (4) was not capable of being isolated from subsections (1) and (2), clause (d) of subsection (4) could not be detached from its preceding clauses of subsections

Clause (d) of subsection (4) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be applied in isolation of the preceding clauses (a), (b) & (c) of subsection (4)

Different clauses of S.177, were interrelated and the sequence, or order in which those had been mentioned by the legislature in its wisdom, must be observed by the Authorities in letter and spirit as an obligation

Impugned selection for audit of taxpayer's case for audit under S.177(4)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was illegal and without lawful authority

Same was set at naught, which rendered the consequent amended assessment to be illegal, hence same was cancelled and taxpayer's appeal had succeeded on legal score

Impugned amended assessment, which was under S.121(1)(d) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was not warranted prior to insertion of subsection (10) in S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through the Finance Act, 2010, which would be applicable from the tax year 2011

Impugned ex parte assessment, was liable to be cancelled on that score too.

Respondent-student was not awarded the gold medal on the basis that University also took into account standard scores and whosoever received the highest Standard Score was awarded a gold medal and 'Standard Score' 'meant the transformed marks, obtained using the principle of Normal Curve

Validity

Regulation 10.6 of the Regulations stipulated that the person who was entitled to receive the gold medal was required to have passed all the four semesters within two years and the first position was to be determined by the total marks/score obtained in the four semesters

Previous applicable regulations of the University also provided that the first position shall be determined on the basis of total marks obtained in all semesters

Respondent-student had passed the four semesters within the prescribed period and had obtained the highest marks/scores, in each of the four semesters and overall too therefore, she was entitled to receive the gold medal whether she was adjudged by the earlier regulations or the current Regulations

Standard Score formula used by the University did not find mention in any of the Regulations

Moreover, the said formula took into consideration factors over which an aspirant did not have control, such as total number of students and the marks obtained by them; therefore, if the Standard Score formula was made the basis for determining as to who was to receive the gold medal, it was not only extraneous to the Regulations, but also illogical

Regulations of the University were clear, not open to interpretation, and had been enacted by the University therefore, the same must be abided by

Appeal was dismissed accordingly and University was directed to award the gold medal to the respondent-student.

Competent authority to initiate audit of a person under S. 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was the Commissioner, and such audit not only related to the income tax returns filed by the person but also related to such person's "entire income tax affairs"

Determination criteria for selection for audit of a person was not restricted to returns filed by the said person but it may include the person's history of compliance or non-compliance with the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; the amount of tax payable, the class of business conducted and any other matter, which in the opinion of the Commissioner, was material for the determination of the person's correct income

Conduct of the audit comprised of the income tax affairs, including examination of accounts and record, inquiry into expenditure, assets and liability of the person under audit

Scope of audit, thus, was not restricted to just returns filed by the person who was under audit

If the audit was based solely on particulars stated in the tax return filed, and the taxpayer filed revised tax return for the said tax year under S. 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and if the same clarified all the issues raised in the audit notice; then said audit would conclude, and the revised tax returns so filed would have to be accepted, and amended assessment order would be passed under S. 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

If the revised tax return only clarified a part of the issues raised in the notice of audit, and not all, under such circumstances, when all issues raised in the notice for audit were not clarified, then the audit would proceed and appropriate amended assessment order was to be passed under S. 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Landed and built up property, fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees were compulsorily acquired at public expenses for public purposes

Land Acquisition Collector considered one year average price of mixed type of land as well as one year average price of single kind of land

Criteria of one year average price could not be made basis for assessment of compensation amount of acquired land

Compensation should be fixed in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee when land was acquired in the interest of general public at public expenses on the basis of sacrifice of an individual

Compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, in the present case, was not according to legal and equitable criteria

Law would favour award of fair compensation in case of compulsory acquisition of land

Acquired property was situated in one compact block in the middle of city having potential value and Referee Court was required to appoint local commission for determination of fair compensation

Local commission should also associate all the concerned revenue officials for keeping in view the then one year average price of mixed kind of land and one year average price of single kind of land besides other factors including future potential value of acquired land as well as the schedule of valuation

Referee Court had decided the matter of apportionment of compensation amount in haste without consulting of revenue record

Court should take into consideration the assessment of land acquired in the same vicinity

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Referee Court were set aside and objection petitions were remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law

Appeals were accepted in circumstances.

Criteria of one year average could not be made basis for compensation of acquired land in view of extraordinary hike in landed property

Individual sacrificing land in public interest needed to be adequately compensated

Compensation should be fixed by criteria of a willing vendor and needy vendee

Land situated near road was always considered to be of more value than the land situated at a distance from the road

Enhanced amount was not found exaggerated or exorbitant

Appeals were dismissed.

Person who had received the amount otherwise than "under protest" was not entitled to make any application under S. 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

No bar existed for appointment of local commissioner by the Referee Judge for determination of market value

Referee Judge, in the present case, appointed local commissioner who assessed the value of land as Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 70,000 per kanal

Potential value of the property was higher than the assessed amount in the award

Referee Judge despite confirmation of report of local commissioner had dismissed the reference which was not in line with law

District Collector had assessed the value of property at the rate of Rs. 19952 per kanal but no evidence had been produced as to how and on what criteria such amount was assessed

No document was on record in support of assessment made by the District Collector

Assessment of price in the light of evidence available had not been made by the Referee Judge

Criteria of one year average prices was not of any help for determination of market value of the acquired land

Classification and nature of land had to be taken into consideration for assessment of market value

Referee Judge had wrongly observed that hike in prices during 10 years was due to the project of the department

Prices of land had jumped high in near past and owners/objectors could not be deprived of such natural phenomenon

Referee Judge had neither properly assessed the evidence available on the file nor the remand order of the court had been complied with

Future prospect of the land acquired should be taken into consideration for determination of compensation

Market value of the land had to be taken as existed on publication of notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and price of the similar land situated in the vicinity during preceding one year as well as from the spot inspection

Compensation fixed by the Collector could not be termed as fair value and the same would require enhancement in the light of prevailing circumstances

Land under reference comprised of different kind of properties having different potential value

Potentiality, future prospect and 'Ausat Yaksala' of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration alongwith other factors for determination of compensation

Findings of Referee Judge were misplaced

Compensation for all kind of agriculture land was assessed Rs. 50,000 per kanal whereas Rs. 1,00,000 per kanal was fixed for land which would come within the ambit of residential property

Impugned order was set aside and compensation amount was enhanced by accepting the reference petition

Appeal was accepted, in circumstances.

Ineligibility of candidate for disability seats due to findings of Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board

Scope

Aggregate of petitioner was 81.0762% and his name was not included in the list of selected candidates against the seats reserved for disabled candidates

Petitioner was shown at serial No. 12 of the list showing the candidates not found eligible for disability seats

Petitioner was not found a disabled person in view of Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board and twenty other candidates were found eligible for admission on the basis of medical examination conducted by a Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board

Student placed at serial No. 1 of the list of successful candidates had obtained aggregate of 88.0260% whereas last one placed at serial No. 20 of the said list obtained the aggregate of 68.6662%

Petitioner should have been placed after serial No. 7 in the said list but he was ignored in the merits and his name was included in the list of candidates not eligible for disability seats on the findings of Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board which did not find the petitioner having suffered from any disability

Petitioner provided a certificate issued by Social Welfare Woman Development and Bait-ul-Maal (Provincial Council for the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons) in Government of Punjab wherein he was assessed by the Board constituted to adjudge the disability

Disability of petitioner shown in the said certificate was "Left Ankylosed Elbow" which was permanent in nature

Clauses b & c of Rule II of Prospectus for Government Medical and Dental Institutions of Punjab for the Session 2013-14 were inter-contradictory as clause-b provided that the candidate was required to attach a certificate from a government certified specialist about his disability which only would make him eligible to apply against the reserved seat whereas clause-c had provided that a Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board would make final decision about the eligibility against the said seats

Candidates were required only to submit a certificate issued by a specialist working in Government Hospital when applications were invited from them and role of Medical Board was restricted only to the extent that it should verify such disability

Re-assessment of disability or nature thereof had no where been provided within the competence of Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board

Once the Board in the Government Hospital had (already) assessed the type of disability and nature thereof, the same should have been considered sufficient compliance of the required criteria

No final opinion of the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Medical Board with regard to permanent disability of the petitioner had been disclosed

Petitioner, in circumstances, was entitled to be given admission in M.B.B.S. programme in Public Sector Medical Institutions for the session 2013-14

Respondent-University was directed to arrange admission of the petitioner against the seats reserved for disabled students forthwith however it was clarified that students already admitted should not be disturbed or dislodged

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Petitioner filed an application for the grant of certificate of domicile of district "Y" which was rejected by the District Co-ordination Officer

Contentions of petitioner were that she had been condemned unheard as impugned order was passed on the basis of report of Political Assistant that petitioner was not a permanent resident of district "Y", and that mother and father of petitioner were holding domicile of district "Y" and petitioner was entitled for the grant of the same of the said district

Validity

Person might have more than one places of residence but could have only one place of domicile

Place of domicile of a person would signify a place where he always had an intention to return

Person might be entitled for grant of certificate of domicile at place "A" being his permanent abode if he had a residence over there and a permanent intention to reside over there notwithstanding his temporary residence

If person had moved from place "A" and had no intention to reside there permanently then he was not entitled to grant certificate of domicile for such place

No such intention had been proved, in the present case, as the land owned by the parents of petitioner was an open land

No construction whatsoever had been made on the said land owned by the parents of petitioner to show that petitioner and her parents had intention to reside there permanently

Father of petitioner had retired from government service and was not residing at district "Y" but residing in district "Z"

Brother and sister of petitioner had obtained domicile certificate from district "Z" and both were residing at the place of domicile since birth

Parents of petitioner had managed to obtain the certificate of domicile of district "Y" during their posting

Petitioner had concealed the fact that her brother and sister had obtained certificate of domicile from district "Y"

Petitioner was not permanently residing in district "Y" and she and her parents had no intention to permanently reside in the said district

Mere ownership of certain piece of land in district "Y" by the parents of petitioner did not create a right in favour of petitioner to obtain a domicile certificate of said district nor same would establish her permanent residence there

Petitioner had failed to produce a single proof of her permanent residence in district "Y"

Petitioner had sought domicile of district "Y" only for the purpose of getting benefits meant for the people of backward area

Impugned order had been passed in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Initial burden to prove the circumstances of fatal accident which would identify the carelessness on the part of defendant (driver) lay on the plaintiff

Presumption of negligence in driving the vehicle would be against the driver once accident was admitted by him to have happened

No discrepancy, in the present case, was pointed out in the evidence of plaintiffs disentitling them to get the benefit of the decree which had already stood satisfied

Plaintiffs had supported the averments made in the plaint through their evidence

Occurrence of the incident had not been denied by the defendants in their written statement

Death of the deceased in the accident had not been denied by the defendants

Burden of proof in fatal accident cases would immediately shift from the plaintiff to the defendant where he had expounded his own version of accident

Occurrence of accident in which two persons had lost their lives had been admitted by the defendants in their written statement

Duty of the driver driving heavy vehicle had to be construed proportionately higher than the person who was either pedestrian walking on the road or a cyclist or motorcyclist going on his own side

Responsibility of the driver of the heavy vehicle to drive the vehicle with due care and diligence was heavier than the obligation of a cyclist or motorcyclist

Maxim "Res Ipsa Loquitur" was applicable in accident cases

When an accident had occurred and loss had suffered at the scene then same would bring out negligence of the defendant (driver)

Simple fact of accident causing loss of lives could be construed prima facie an evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant (driver) as against the pedestrian or a cyclist or motorcyclist

Plaintiff was to prove that death of the deceased had occurred due to an accident involving the vehicle which was being driven by the defendant

Nature and mode of the accident needed examination to determine that the accident had not occurred due to negligence or rashness of the driver

Plaintiffs had discharged their initial burden of proving the happening of the fatal accident causing death of the deceased by the driver at the relevant time

No hard and fast rule could be laid down nor a definite formula could be applied to assess the damages under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855

Simply guesswork to be undertaken with regard to expectancy of life of the deceased who had died in an accident and the resultant pecuniary loss suffered by his legal heirs

No infirmity or illegality had been pointed out in the impugned judgment

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Laying down of criteria for selection of any person of his income tax affairs in terms of subsection (1) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was an essential pre-requisite for the Commissioner to select a person for audit

Once the Commissioner had selected a case for audit in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Central Board of Revenue in terms of clause (1) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the Commissioner could also select a person for audit of his income tax affairs having regard to the factors enumerated in clause (a), person's history of compliance or non-compliance with Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; (b) the amount of tax payable by the person; (c) the class of business conducted by the person

Sub-section (4) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, would come into play, when the Commissioner in the course of proceedings in the audit of a person under subsection (2) of S.177 discovered that in addition to the selection of person in subsection (2), the Commissioner wanted to select another person for audit of income tax affairs

Subsection (4) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in circumstances, was secondary in character in relation to subsections (1) & (2) thereof

If subsection (4) was not capable of being isolated from subsections (1) & (2); clause (d) of subsection (4), could not also be detached from its preceding clauses or subsections

Different clauses of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, were inter-related; and the sequence or order in which same had been mentioned by the Legislature, must be observed by the Executive Authorities in letter and spirit as an obligation, since each clause augmented the other

Clause (d) of subsection (4) of S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be isolated from its preceding clauses or subsections in a manner that primary part of S.177 became redundant in view of such isolation thereby paralyzing the main body of the provision in question, in order to make the residual or secondary clause extra-potent

Impugned selection for audit of appellant/ taxpayer's case for audit under S.177(4)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was illegal and without lawful authority

Same was set aside, which rendered the consequent amended assessment under S.122(1)(5)(i) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to be illegal and was cancelled

Law contained in S.122 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, dealt with the rights and procedure together, any amendment therein would be prospective

Impugned amended assessment in respect of tax year 2007, finalized on 28-6-2013 had to be made, if warranted, according to the old provisions of subsection (2) of S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within five years; after the Commissioner had issued the assessment order, which in the present case was issued on "30-9-2007" and limitation of "five years" ended on 30-9-2012

Impugned amended assessment was adjudged to be time-barred, in circumstances.

Appellant impugned order of Referee Court on the ground that the Court while dealing with the issue of compensation, did not take into consideration the provisions of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after acquisition of the appellant's land

Held, that per S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Court while awarding compensation had to take into regard market value of the land on date of publication of notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the damage sustained by the person by the reason of any standing crop or trees; damage if any, sustained by way of severance of land; the damage, if any, sustained by a person at time of taking of possession of land by the Collector by reason that acquisition affected his other property or his earning

Person, if in consequence of the acquisition of his land, was compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expense incidental to such change and damage resulting from diminution of profits was also to be taken into consideration

In addition to the market value of the land, the Referee Court under S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 also had to award 25% of such market value compensation in case such acquisition had been made for the public purpose

Referee Court, in the present case, had not taken into consideration the criteria provided under S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the impugned order was therefore not passed in accordance with law

High Court set aside impugned order and remanded the matter to the Referee Court for decision afresh on the question of compensation

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

To administer criminal justice the most important criteria or essence of every offence i.e. mens rea or guilty mind had to be considered

No crime or offence was completed unless the commission of the same was coupled with the necessary ingredients of mens rea or guilty mind.

Referee court accepted the objection petition of landowner but enhancement in compensation amount was not made as suggested in report of local commission

Contention of the landowner was that acquired land has commercial characteristics and potentials to get more market price in the open market than the compensation enhanced by Referee Court

Validity

Report of the local commission suggesting enhancement of compensation amount had not been based on any sound proof and documentary evidence and the same could not be made basis for further enhancement

Report had been rightly discarded by the Trial Court to the extent of suggested rates

Order of Trial Court was upheld

Appeal was dismissed.

Contention of the department was that acquired land was agricultural in nature having no potentiality of any commercialism, therefore the enhancement in awarded rates was not justified

Validity

Award was announced after about seven years of publication of notification of acquisition

Collector, while fixing compensation for the acquired land had referred to "Osat yaksala" which was based on sale through mutation executed in village prior to issuance of notification of acquisition

Entire process of acquisition had to be completed within days without unnecessary delay

Rates of compensation had been fixed on the basis of one year average

Award announced by Collector was against the mandate and command of S.11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provided that the acquisition process should not be delayed unnecessarily

Impugned judgment of referee court was maintained

Appeal was dismissed.

Respondent got her entire education from backward area and she was rightly considered for admission in M.B.B.S. programme on the seat reserved for the said area

Factual controversy requiring the recording of evidence was not within the domain of High Court

Petitioner had failed to fulfill the criterion for admission and she was rightly not considered for admission in M.B.B.S. programme against the seats reserved for backward area

Petitioner had only given the option for admission in application form as college "X" while leaving the other three columns blank

Candidate had to give his/her preference in order of priority for medical/dental colleges in the designated space provided in the admission form which once given should be final and could not be changed subsequently

Such condition was mandatory and neither any subsequent change was entertainable nor any exception would be made

Respondents-department had not committed any illegality while declaring the petitioner as out candidate

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.