Eligibility

After joining the post on probation it was revealed that petitioner/candidate failed to meet the prescribed criteria on the date of submission of his application

Eligibility

The petitioner applied for the post of Director Human Resource Management (HRM) in the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) by presenting his academic credentials, including an MBA in Information Technology Management (ITM) and a Ph.D. in Social and Economic Sciences, which he claimed to be in HRM

He was appointed to the post, however, upon later scrutiny, the PPRA found that his degrees did not correspond to the prescribed qualification of a Master's degree (16 years education) in HRM or an equivalent field, and that he had misrepresented his Ph.D. as being in HRM

Consequently, the managing director directed him to provide an HEC equivalence certificate validating his qualification, failing which his services were terminated

The core issue for determination was as to "whether the petitioner was eligible at the time of submitting his application for the advertised post"?

Held: The answer to question was clearly in negative as the petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, rather he maneuvered his credentials in a manner designed to misrepresent his eligibility and thereby enter public service through deceptive means, ultimately causing loss of confidence in the integrity of recruitment process

Once a public servant was found to have secured appointment by misrepresentation thereby betraying the public trust it would be wholly inappropriate to permit his continuation in service

Since the petitioner lacked the basic qualification for the post he could not in law or equity claim any right to continue in office

His appointment was vitiated from its very inception and being on probation, his services were rightly terminated by the competent authority in exercise of delegated powers

Termination of probationary employee did not warrant interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Petitioner being devoid of any merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Regulation 4(7)(b) of the Medical and Dental Undergraduate Education (Admissions, Curriculum and Conduct) Policy and Regulations 2023 ('the Regulations, 2023')

Constitutionality

Held, that in Regulation 4(7)(b) of Regulations, 2023 no particular disadvantage / exclusion was found directed towards Pakistani citizens, who were resident(s) of Middle Eastern countries or Saudi Arabia, for the purposes of present controversy

One of the conditions precedent for self-finance and foreign quota seats was that "candidate must be a resident of foreign country, at the time of applying for admission"

This key-phrase had to be read in the context of the documents ought to be provided by Pakistani students residing abroad and foreign candidates applying for the reserved seats

Details of documents were mentioned in the advertisement which inter alia included Iqama or residence permit or green card or foreign passport

It was evident that candidate(s) seeking admission against foreign seats quota must specify residency of a foreign country, at the time of making application

Physical presence of prospective candidate in Pakistan, at the time of making of application, was not a pre-requisite but what was required was that candidate should be the permanent resident of a foreign country, at the time of making application for admission

Notwithstanding, candidate's physical presence in Pakistan at the time of making application real test was whether he/she possessed any of the documents showing residency of a foreign country

Hypothetically speaking, a candidate, holding Overseas Identity Card and physically present in Pakistan for taking care of ailing parents, could still apply for admission against foreign seat quota, provided he/she had a valid residency of a foreign country, at the time of making application ; or if prospective candidate, having Iqama - [residency of UAE] - was on vacation in United States, he could apply for admission against foreign seat quota provided he/she possessed and submitted copy of valid Iqama along with the application

A prospective candidate may not be physically present in UAE - country of Iqama - but if he/she was a resident of a foreign country, at the time of applying for admission, he was eligible to apply

An invalid or ineffective Iqama did not entitle said candidate to seek a reserved seat

Persual of Ss.10 and 12 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, showed that National Identity Cards were issued to the citizens and Overseas Identity Cards were issued to a class of citizens resident abroad while a foreign student was defined under Regln.2(g) of the Regulations, 2023

High Court rejected the challenge to the legality / constitutionality of impugned Regulation

Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Regulation 4(7)(b) of the Medical and Dental Undergraduate Education (Admissions, Curriculum and Conduct) Policy and Regulations, 2023 ('the Regulation, 2023')

Constitutionality

Held, that in the correspondence addressed by the petitioner/candidate to the President of Pakistan Medical Commission, complaining against foreign residency requirements at the time of admission to MBBS, he admited being resident of Pakistan, acknowledging that he was not a foreign resident at the time of applying for MBBS in Pakistan

Said particular stand disentitled the petitioner from claiming admission under foreign seats quota ("designated reserved seats")

Advertisement for admission for the session 2023-24 required submission of Iqama or residence permits green card or foreign passport to substantiate candidate's foreign residency at the time of submission of application

Petitioner possessed none of the mentioned documents, hence, same suffered from inherent deficiency for the purposes of seeking admission against reserved seats

Petitioner misconstrued the scope of the impugned Regulation, and failed to show that he was resident of a foreign country, at the time of making of the application

Petitioner admitted his status as Pakistani citizen, and not being resident of a foreign country

High Court rejected the challenge to the legality / constitutionality of impugned Regulation

Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Petitioners were aggrieved by the failure of Returning Officer (respondent) for conducting elections of the National Council for Homoepathy ('Council'), in deciding objections filed by the petitioner against the eligibility of (two) respondents to contest the election as Members of the Council

Plea of the petitioners was that pursuant to S. 9(3) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 ('the Act 1965') the members were eligible for re-nomination or re-election to the Council on the expiry of the prescribed term

Contention of the respondents/candidates was that it was imperative to determine the intent of the legislature in S. 9(3) of the Act 1965, which was permissive and not prohibitive for members to be re-nominated or re-elected

Question whether S. 9 of the Act, 1965 allowed sitting members of the Council to contest the election to serve on a successive Council

Held, that S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 determined the eligibility of members for re-nomination or re-election to the Council and plainly provided that members of the Council shall be eligible for re-nomination or re-election "on the expiry of the prescribed term"

Term of the Council was prescribed by R. 15 of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic System Medicine Rules, 1980 ('the Rules, 1980') as a five-year period

If a member of the Council was only eligible for re-nomination or re-election upon expiry of the prescribed term of five years, the election of the successive Council under S. 9(5) of the Act, 1965 read together with R. 18 of the Rules, 1980 would have already taken place by the time the term of office of such member expired

Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Act, 1965 read with R. 15 of the Rules, 1980 provide that a member will serve out a five-year term and will cease to hold office upon expiry of such five-year period

Section 9(5) of the Act 1965 then mandates that the election of successive Council must be held three months prior to the expiry of the term of the Council

If S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 was read in such manner, as was contented by the respondents, the said section would become redundant

Section 9(3) of the Act, 1965 clearly stated that members became eligible for re-nomination or re-election on expiry of their five-year term

If that was what the legislature had intended, instead of using the words "on expiry of the term" it could simply have written "prior to the expiry of the prescribed term", or better still it could simply have omitted S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 or stated that members of the Council were eligible for re-nomination or re-election

Even from a policy perspective it was hard to accord S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965, the meaning being accorded by the respondents under the doctrine of purposive interpretation

Intent of the legislature as evident from S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 read together with S. 9(5) was to create a cooling-off period for the incumbent members of a Council and enable other members to be elected as members of the Council

It could not be presumed that this was not the intent of the legislature and in order to make sense of S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 the Court must read into the said subsection what was not provided therein

Where it appears that the words used by the legislature are unambiguous, it is not for the Court to read into the statute and give it a meaning that does not flow from the ordinary meaning of the words used

Plain reading of S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965 read together with the other subsections of S. 9 provided that the members of a Council were not eligible for re-election till after the expiry of their five year term by which time the election of the successive Council would already have been convened

Consequently, the Returning Officer/respondent could not have accepted the nomination papers for respondents/candidates to contest elections of the successive Council, which were being convened at a time when their term in office had not expired and they were incumbent members of the Council

Respondents were ,therefore, ineligible to contest the election and the acceptance of their nomination papers was in breach of S. 9(3) of the Act, 1965

Acceptance of nomination papers of respondents is declared to be unlawful

Returning Officer will remove the names of respondents and the names of any other members of the Council whose term as members of the Council had not expired, and issue an updated list of valid nominations for purposes of R. 22 of the Rules, 1980

Returning Officer (respondent) will proceed to issue a revised schedule of the next steps to be followed for purposes of convening the election in accordance with the Rules, 1980

Returning Officer (respondent) will ensure that the election is convened and a Council is in place prior to the expiry of the term of the incumbent Council as required by S. 9(5) of the Act, 1965

Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.

Petitioner /candidate filed writ petition contending that he got first position in his Tehsil 'Gupis' ('Tehsil-in-question') after going through the process of written test and interview but the respondents (Education Department) verbally issued directions that he was not eligible for the post being resident of hard area (Moula Abad Gupis) for which no post was available

Validity

Record revealed that the Respondents advertised different posts including the two (2) posts of Primary/Middle School Teacher for tehsil-in-question

After conducting written test, tentative merit list of qualified candidates was issued, wherein the petitioner stood 3rd

During the scrutiny of documents one of the candidates, who was topper of the written test, failed to provide relevant/required documents, hence he was disqualified; resultantly, the petitioner stood second in the written test

Later on, the petitioner had been verbally disqualified by the respondents on the pretext that the petitioner was resident of hard area (Moula Abad, Gupis)

Record (provided before the Chief Court by the respondents) revealed that as per the recommendations two candidates qualified for the posts of Primary/Middle School Teacher, wherein the petitioner had topped the merit list by securing highest marks in the final merit list

Since the petitioner was the topper at Tehsil level and had remained distinguished throughout the selection process and no vacancy was available in his area (hard area) for employment, therefore, being topper the petitioner had substantial right and was entitled for adjustment/employment against the available vacant post of SPS (Special Pay Scale) Primary/Middle School Teacher BS-14 in Tehsil Gupis

Petitioner / candidate must be given an opportunity to serve the Department of Education

Chief Court directed the respondents to adjust the petitioner as Primary School Teacher (BS-14) against the vacant post

Writ petition, filed by candidate, was allowed, in circumstances.

Counsel for the appellants stated that disqualification was for life by relying on the decision in the case of Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 405) which held that when Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is attracted, the disqualification is for life

However, the counsel for the respondent disputed this and stated that the period of disqualification was for five years as per section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, which provision was enacted through the Elections (Amendment) Act, 2023, promulgated on 26 June 2023

Counsel were unanimous in stating that unless there was a clear pronouncement by the Supreme Court on the matter the returning officers in the forthcoming general elections may wonder whether to apply section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, or the said judgment of the Supreme Court, which may create needless confusion in the elections and shall not be conducive to democracy, and that there was also the likelihood of election tribunals and courts being inundated with cases arising out of the uncertainty

Supreme Court directed that notices under Order XXVIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were to be issued to the Attorney-General, to all the Advocate Generals of the provinces, to the Election Commission of Pakistan and public notice be published in a prominent English and Urdu newspaper having wide circulation as the decision in these appeals may also affect those who are not parties hereto; that concise statements attending to the said constitutional and legal questions, without reference to facts and the particulars of individual cases may be filed; that pendency of these appeals and the questions raised herein shall not be used as a pretext to delay the forthcoming general elections scheduled to be held on 8 February 2024, and that these cases, and any others involving the same question, be fixed for hearing in early January, 2024 before a Bench constituted by the Committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.

Pre-requisite educational qualification (degree) not attained / finalized by the aspirants till cutoff date for submissions of applications

Question was, whether or not , a candidate who did not possess the requisite qualification at the relevant time could apply for the post

Held, that eligibility criteria expressly mentioned in the advertisement could not be ignored, altered or deviated from during the selection process, particularly when the cut-off date for the submission of applications had expired

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Pre-requisite educational qualification (degree) not attained / finalized by the aspirants till cutoff date for submissions of applications

Question was, whether or not, a candidate who did not possess the requisite qualification at the relevant time could apply for the post

Petitioners who were awaiting result of their Master's Degree (in Public Health) from Medical University had applied for the said advertised posts despite the fact that result of their 4th (final) Semester had not been announced

Petitioners appeared in the test and according to them they had passed the written test

Balochistan Public Service Commission ('the Commission'), on verification, disqualified the petitioners from appearing in the interview on the sole ground that at the time of submissions of application and cutoff date provided in said regard by the Commission, the petitioners had not passed the exam of their 4th Semester

Petitioners filed constitutional petition contenting that though the result was announced subsequently (after about a month of cut-off date) they had obtained the Degree of Master in Public Health, therefore they were eligible to appear in viva voce

Validity

Admittedly, on the last date for submissions of applications provided by the Commission the petitioners had not obtained the relevant degree rather they passed their semester subsequently

Petitioners for all intents and purposes were not qualified to apply for the posts-in-question on or before the cut-off date as they lacked the basic qualifications for the said posts as they obtained their degree subsequently

A candidate, who does not possess the requisite qualification at the relevant time , cannot apply for the post on the basis of practice of issuing "hope certificate" by the relevant university as it is not understandable as how a university, in such a certificate, can make a categorical statement that the aspirant "would pass his final examination"

The very concept of "hope certificate" is beyond comprehension

If for a particular job / position, certain educational qualification are required, these have to be met before the candidate applies for the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Pre-requisite educational qualification (degree) not attained / finalized by the aspirants till cutoff date for submissions of applications

Vested right to appointment

Scope

Question was, whether or not, a candidate who did not possess the requisite qualification at the relevant time could apply for the post

Argument of the petitioners was that since the petitioners had passed the written test, therefore, a vested right had been created in their favor

Held, that said argument was misconceived as the petitioners were not qualified even to submit application for the advertised post having not obtained the relevant degree at the given time

Since the petitioners themselves committed misrepresentation by posing themselves eligible for the said post, therefore, at subsequent stage petitioners could nto ask for any premium on account of their own fault

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners / doctors claimed to have acquired qualification of MCPS and sought exemption from requirements of FCPS Part-1

Petitioners / doctors claimed eligibility based on certificates of recognition of experience and sought protection against change in exemption rules on the premise of doctrine of legitimate expectation

Validity

Pakistan Medical and Dental Council disowned issuance of equivalence certificates and claim of legitimate expectation failed on merits

No vested right could be claimed to displace the effect of revised exemption rules

Neither doctrine of procedural legitimate expectation nor substantive legitimate expectation was attracted

No unambiguous assurance / representation was made by CPSP to petitioners / doctors nor any such assurance was pleaded

Legitimacy of expectation was not established and consequently doctrine was not available

High Court declined to invoke judicial review jurisdiction to review legality of decision of CPSP

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was appointed as Operator BS-5-EDC in Technical Cadre Special Branch Punjab Police, Lahore on contract basis and the same had been extended from time to time uptill the same was not further extended

Punjab Public Service Commission ('the Commission') advertised the posts of Supervisor BS-14/EDC Technical Cadre Special Branch, Punjab Police, and the petitioner was declared successful candidate and selected but his appointment letter was withheld due to his involvement in some criminal case

Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the rejection of his representation against withholding his appointment letter having been made before the concerned authority

Validity

For the recruitment in the Police Department, the incumbents should necessarily have an unblemished character, which was apparently found deficient in the petitioner who had deliberately concealed the material fact (criminal case having been registered against him), thus he had come to High Court with soiled hands which disentitled him from any discretionary relief

High Court was well within jurisdiction to withhold the exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner

Petitioner had not pointed out any illegality, material irregularity and jurisdictional defect in the impugned order (rejection of his representation), passed by competent authority

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court reached the conclusion that the date of birth of the respondent-candidate was the one being claimed by him and this was also authenticated and verified by the Headmaster on production of original record/extract from the schools admissions register

Merely directing one of the respondents to produce some documents for verification does not amount to an indulgence to resolve a factual controversy or a disputed question of fact

In order to resolve the issue of date of birth of a minor, the most appropriate authority was the Headmaster of the school who appeared and confirmed the correct date of birth as per the available record

In the present case, the question of ascertaining correct date of birth of the respondent did not require any external aid much less any oral evidence, but it was verified through documentary evidence produced by the Headmaster of the School, who was one of the respondents in the writ petition

Production of documents and verification by the Headmaster on notice of the High Court cannot be categorized within the realm and sphere of disputed question of facts

High Court is not powerless to undertake an enquiry on the basis of affidavits and admitted documents filed by the parties

High Court had rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Document/letter of Provincial Bar Council, which was available on record, specifically mentioned that the petitioner's/candidate's name was struck off from the Roll of Advocates

Name of an advocate being struck off from the Roll of the Advocates, apparently, meant that he was no more a practicing advocate under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, and cannot claim himself to be a practicing advocate

Advertisement for appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judges specifically required the candidate to be a practicing advocate, which condition was not fulfilled by the petitioner

High Court in the impugned judgment had correctly addressed this very aspect of the matter and found that the petitioner was not a practicing advocate when he applied for being appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Petitioners had been serving in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government for more than five years and had applied for allotment of flats/ apartments

Authorities declared petitioners ineligible for allotment on the ground that the scheme was only for retired employees

Validity

Initial advertisement, soliciting applications of government servants for sale/purchase of apartments, envisaged that an employee of Federal Government working in Basic Pay Scale-17 and above, who had worked with the affairs of Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for 5 years, was eligible for allotment of apartment

To hold public servants responsible for their words, Court had always resorted to well enshrined principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estopple

Letter/order in question holding petitioners ineligible for apartments/flats was passed by a person who had no jurisdiction in the matter albeit based on alien considerations

High Court set aside letter/order declaring petitioners as ineligible for allotment of apartments/ flats as illegal and without lawful authority

High Court directed the authorities to place cases of petitioners before Special Committee established under S.10 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Housing Authority Act, 2005, for appropriate decision

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

In terms of S. 2(xxxix) of Elections Act, 2017, technocrat, meant a person, who had studied and had undergone at least 16 years of education in any specialized faculty and discipline, and therefore, applied his educational qualification in the specialized field of vocations he adopted/gained hands on experience, acquired expertise and rose to a higher or senior management or commanding position to be able to make and take policy decisions in the field of any vocation or discipline he was pursuing, may it be Engineering, Computer or Information Technology, Medicine, Social Sciences etc.; and in recognition of his qualification coupled with hands on experience he had a proven track record of achievements at national or international level to his credit at any organization, business or field.

Such experience was to be counted only after acquiring the prescribed qualification mentioned under S. 2(xxxix) of the Elections Act, 2017.

Held, that in his nomination papers the petitioner had declared his professional experience as being Principal Officer at a family run hotel

Merely running a shop or a small hotel/ restaurant at a local area did not qualify the petitioner as a technocrat

Furthermore the qualification of Master degree obtained by the petitioner was in International Relations, which, firstly was not in the field of his family vocation of running a hotel/restaurant, and secondly such qualification did not add any value or raise the standard of his family hotel/ restaurant

Merely attending to family vocation during studies was not sufficient unless the petitioner showed that he possessed not less than or at the minimum 20 years of practical experience, that thereafter earned him senior management policy making position

Petitioner's participation in the affairs of Chambers of Commerce and Industries and being a member of its Executive Committee, was not a position of excellence, and even otherwise his standing in the Chamber of Commerce as a member was hardly nine (9) years, which did not fulfil the requirement of 20 years of experience that earned him acclamation as a businessman of national and or international level

Nomination papers of petitioner for technocrat seat of Senate were rightly rejected

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Petitioners had been serving in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government for more than five years and had applied for allotment of flats/ apartments

Authorities declared petitioners ineligible for allotment on the ground that the scheme was only for retired employees

Validity

Initial advertisement, soliciting applications of government servants for sale/purchase of apartments, envisaged that an employee of Federal Government working in Basic Pay Scale-17 and above, who had worked with the affairs of Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for 5 years, was eligible for allotment of apartment

To hold public servants responsible for their words, Court had always resorted to well enshrined principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estopple

Letter/order in question holding petitioners ineligible for apartments/flats was passed by a person who had no jurisdiction in the matter albeit based on alien considerations

High Court set aside letter/order declaring petitioners as ineligible for allotment of apartments/ flats as illegal and without lawful authority

High Court directed the authorities to place cases of petitioners before Special Committee established under S.10 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Housing Authority Act, 2005, for appropriate decision

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner assailed notification issued by the President, constituting NFC, in which Advisor to Prime Minister on Revenue and Finance was included in the Commission who was to chair the meetings of Commission and also fixed Terms of Reference for the NFC

Validity

Purpose of appointing Federal and Provincial Ministers as permanent Statutory Members of NFC was because they were elected representatives and part of their respective cabinets

Such members were under Constitutional oath, once on becoming members of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies and then before entering into the offices of Federal or Provincial Ministries respectively

Such Members were chosen representatives well conversant with the problems and needs of people whom they represented and were also collectively responsible to the Parliament and Provincial Assembly

Federal and Provincial Ministers had been made permanent members of NFC by designation only

No one including an Advisor to Prime Minister or Advisor to Chief Minister could replace Federal and Provincial Finance Ministers

Notification in question was clear enough, according to which in absence of Federal Minister of Finance, the Advisor to Prime Minister was to chair the NFC

According to Art. 160 of the Constitution, the President had no power to do so, as such the Advisor to Prime Minister could not act on behalf of the Federal Minister of Finance in NFC

If Prime Minister was holding portfolio of Federal Minister of Finance, he in his capacity as Minister of Finance could attend the meeting of NFC

Scope and mechanism for NFC to be followed was provided in Art.160 of the Constitution

Any direction contrary to the provisions of Art.160 of the Constitution with regard to proceedings of NFC was unconstitutional

Terms of Reference made by the President with direction to the members of NFC to follow the same were illegal and unconstitutional

President and NFC were bound to follow whatever the Constitution of Pakistan empowered them

High Court set aside the notification to the extent of appointing Advisor to Prime Minister as member of NFC

High Court also set aside the Terms of Reference made by the President for NFC

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner contended alleged that the respondents did not possess the requisite experience as required in the advertisement; that the experience of private service of respondents was wrongly considered; that the institution in which respondents served was recognized at a later point in time, therefore, they lacked the requisite experience and the requirement of the advertisement was that experience certificate must be given by a recognized Institute

Validity

Contentions of petitioner were based on misconception

Institution, in which the respondents had served, at the relevant point in time, was provisionally affiliated with the Board of Technical Education and the experience certificate issued by the college showed that the respondents had served the Institute

Experience of respondents was rightly considered by the Public Service Commission, as required under the advertisement, thus, no illegality was committed

Constitutional petition, being bereft of merit, was dismissed.

Qualification for appointment of an Advocate-General would be construed in terms of Art.193 of the Constitution (which provided qualifications for appointment as a Judge of the High Court)

Person less than 45 years, shall not be competent to be appointed as an Advocate-General, however the retiring age (of 62 years) for a Judge of the High Court as mentioned in Art.195 of the Constitution, could not be applied to be a disqualification for the appointment of an Advocate-General

Since no retiring age had been prescribed in the Constitution for an Advocate-General, therefore, the (retiring) age (of 62 years) prescribed under Art.195 of the Constitution for a Judge of High Court could not be counted or deemed to be a disqualification for appointment of a person as Advocate-General.

Police constables from other wings such as Traffic Police Wardens, Police Constabulary and Patrolling Police were not eligible to apply against the said 25% quota

Service Rules for Punjab Highway Patrol, Traffic Police Wardens and Punjab Constabulary were not only separate but their method of appointment and promotion track were also separate and further, in each wing, the requirement and skill were different

Provincial Police Department while exercising powers conferred under Art. 112 of the Police Order, 2002 had approved the recruitment criteria and terms and conditions of service for members of the Punjab Highway Patrol, perusal whereof revealed that it not only provided recruitment as well as promotion criteria for the members of Punjab Highway Patrol but also laid the procedure of merger in executive branch and at a specified level

High Court had rightly disallowed the participation of the candidates from other forces/wings of the Punjab Police such as Traffic Police Wardens, Police Constabulary and Patrolling Police against the quota in question

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Candidate for seat of technocrat at the first instance had to establish that he held a degree acquired by him on conclusion of at least sixteen (16) years of education, which degree was duly recognized by the Higher Education Commission; Secondly the candidate had to show his experience consisting of minimum period of twenty years with a record of achievement either of national and international level

Such period of twenty years had to be counted from the degree acquired on conclusion of at least sixteen years of education

Requirement of minimum 20 years of practical experience/knowledge gained must be on basis of the academic education, i.e. the experience must have nexus with the degree obtained by the candidate.

In terms of S. 2(xxxix) of the Elections Act, 2017 the required number of years of experience must be related to the education and academic qualification obtained by the candidate

In the present case the candidate contesting for seat of technocrat obtained a Bachelor's degree in law but was engaged in the business of supply of vehicles and construction, therefore, his experience had no nexus with the discipline in which he obtained the degree

Nomination papers of candidate in question had been rightly rejected

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Person would fall within the ambit of 'technocrat' only when he had required number of years of education in addition to the experience in the same discipline

Candidate contesting the election as 'technocrat' must possess both the qualifications contained in sub-Cls. (a) and (b) of S.2(xxxix) of Elections Act, 2017 i.e. the possession of a degree requiring conclusion of at least 16 years of education recognized by the Higher Education Commission and twenty years' experience including a record of achievement at national or international level

Such experience must be related to the education and academic qualification obtained by the person.

Petitioner contended that he had fulfilled prescribed formalities for the appointment of junior clerk in place of his father who had been permanently incapacitated

Authorities contended that petitioner had secured less than 45% marks in Matriculation so he, at the most, was eligible for the post of Naib Qasid

Validity

Report and para-wise comments filed by the respondents revealed that prescribed qualification for the appointment as junior clerk according to Government Notification and Authority, qualification and mode of appointment of the employees, under the Rules of the Authority petitioner was required to have Matriculation certificate with minimum 45% marks with typing speed of 40 words per minute in English or 30 words per minute in Urdu along with having knowledge and skill of MS Office, Word Processing, Spread Sheet Development and composing etc.

Held, percentage of marks secured by the petitioner in Matriculation i.e. 44.94% could be considered as 45% and rest of the two tests/requirements would be taken by the Authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law

High Court directed that in case the petitioner would qualify for the rest two tests/requirements, he would be issued appointment letter for junior clerk

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Police constables from other wings such as Traffic Police Wardens, Police Constabulary and Patrolling Police were not eligible to apply against the said 25% quota

Service Rules for Punjab Highway Patrol, Traffic Police Wardens and Punjab Constabulary were not only separate but their method of appointment and promotion track were also separate and further, in each wing, the requirement and skill were different

Provincial Police Department while exercising powers conferred under Art. 112 of the Police Order, 2002 had approved the recruitment criteria and terms and conditions of service for members of the Punjab Highway Patrol, perusal whereof revealed that it not only provided recruitment as well as promotion criteria for the members of Punjab Highway Patrol but also laid the procedure of merger in executive branch and at a specified level

High Court had rightly disallowed the participation of the candidates from other forces/wings of the Punjab Police such as Traffic Police Wardens, Police Constabulary and Patrolling Police against the quota in question

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Respondents who had qualification of FCPS in Cardiology challenged promotion of appellant by contending that under the law only those Assistant Professors having FCPS in Cardiology could be considered for appointment as Associate Professor of Cardiology, which qualification was not possessed by appellant

Validity

Accumulative reading of Regulations 12 & 19 of the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011 showed that academic qualification for post of Associate Professor of Cardiology, included the Level III qualification in the sub-specialities or General FCPS

Regulation 19 of the laid Regulations clearly provided that if a candidate was qualified for the position of Senior Registrar in General Medicine or General Surgery etc and was a holder of FCPS, MD, MS in General Medicine or General Surgery etc. and attained the post of Assistant Professor in a sub-speciality then no preference would be given to a person, who was holding the FCPS in the requisite field, for the purpose of the appointment to further post including that of Associate Professor

Appellant in terms of Regulation 19, held the requisite qualification, as an Assistant Professor of Cardiology with the requisite experience, hence was entitled to be considered for appointment/promotion as Associate Professor of Cardiology

Record also showed that appellant was senior to the respondents

Office order of appellant's promotion as Associate Professor of Cardiology was valid in law and could not be set aside

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Candidate who contested election for reserved seat of 'labourer' worked in a foreign Bank as an Assistant Relationship Manager and was paid a fairly substantial salary

Such candidate could not be termed as a 'labourer' on the basis that he performed a clerical job

When a person falsely projected himself to belong to a weak, vulnerable or under represented class, and captured a seat reserved for such persons he deprived those that the law had sought to protect and promote

Supreme Court directed that the respondent should immediately be de-notified from the reserved seat of labourer/peasant, and the said reserved seat should be filled-in as per law

Appeal was allowed accordingly with costs in the sum of twenty thousand rupees on the respondent since an advantage, not otherwise available to him, was blatantly sought and obtained and a genuine labourer/peasant was deprived of his/her right.

Respondents who had qualification of FCPS in Cardiology challenged promotion of appellant by contending that under the law only those Assistant Professors having FCPS in Cardiology could be considered for appointment as Associate Professor of Cardiology, which qualification was not possessed by appellant

Validity

Accumulative reading of Regulations 12 & 19 of the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011 showed that academic qualification for post of Associate Professor of Cardiology, included the Level III qualification in the sub-specialities or General FCPS

Regulation 19 of the laid Regulations clearly provided that if a candidate was qualified for the position of Senior Registrar in General Medicine or General Surgery etc and was a holder of FCPS, MD, MS in General Medicine or General Surgery etc. and attained the post of Assistant Professor in a sub-speciality then no preference would be given to a person, who was holding the FCPS in the requisite field, for the purpose of the appointment to further post including that of Associate Professor

Appellant in terms of Regulation 19, held the requisite qualification, as an Assistant Professor of Cardiology with the requisite experience, hence was entitled to be considered for appointment/promotion as Associate Professor of Cardiology

Record also showed that appellant was senior to the respondents

Office order of appellant's promotion as Associate Professor of Cardiology was valid in law and could not be set aside

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Every private company would have not less than two Directors, and every public company not less than seven Directors, under provisions of S.174 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984

Under provisions of S.209(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, each Director was required to hold the shares of an amount not exceeding the nominal value of the qualification shares i.e. Rs.5000 each, but no Director of the company was holding such shares

Directors of the company, in circumstances, would ipso facto cease to hold office of Directors, being not members of the company

Company having failed to comply with provisions of Ss.174, 187(h), 188 and 209(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, was liable to be imposed penalty under Ss.186, 189, 209(2) of the Ordinance

Commission, instead of imposing the penalties, took a lenient view, and condoned the company due to reasons that company and its management had no intention to violate said provisions of law and that the effect of each contravention had not grossly harmed the interest of the company's shareholders.

Petitioners and respondent were working as Assistant Directors (BS-17) in Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority ("Authority")

Petitioners held diplomas in various disciplines, while the respondent had a bachelor's degree in engineering

Petitioners, who were senior to the respondent were promoted to posts of Deputy Director (BS-18) in the year 2012

Respondent challenged promotion of petitioners by contending that they could not be promoted as they only held diplomas; that Pakistan Engineering Council had given its opinion/comments that a diploma could not be equated with a degree; that appointment of diploma-holders to posts involving professional engineering works was illegal

Validity

When petitioners were promoted, the relevant rules in force were the Pakistan Standards Institution Recruitment Rules, 2012

Rule 5 of the said Recruitment Rules provided that posts of Deputy Director to be filled by promotion could be done from amongst the Assistant Directors with at least 5 years' service

Nowhere in the Pakistan Standards Institution Recruitment Rules, 2012 was it provided that promotees should be professional engineers

Requirement of a Master's or Bachelor's degree were only provided for direct appointees, and not promotees

Admittedly petitioners were appointed as Deputy Directors by promotion hence condition of Bachelor's degree could not be placed upon them, as in the case of direct appointees

Opinion/comments of Pakistan Engineering Council should not have influenced the matter of petitioners' promotion, as department/institution itself must determine as to whether the persons in its service were fit to hold a particular position

Promotion of petitioners was upheld in circumstances

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Requirement of exclusive ownership for such candidacy would permit eligibility to person who were either original members or purchasers of property in one name

Price of urban land had gone high and requirement of exclusive ownership would block resident members who were co-owners from contesting in management of society

Public policy nor public interest favoured that wealth of a member should outweigh other qualities of representation, including leadership and public service profile of candidates

In the interest of justice, nominee co-owner was permitted to contest election of society

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by authorities

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Civil servant has a right to be considered for promotion if eligible on account of possessing prescribed minimum qualification

Civil servant has no vested right to be promoted.

Paragraph No.1.1(a) of the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme mentioned that 75% quota of plots was fixed for employees of the Federal Ministries/ Divisions/Attached Departments and their subordinate offices, members of regularly constituted groups/services of the Federal Government and members of the superior Judiciary

Paragraph No.1.1(b) of the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme fixed quota of 8% of the plots for employees of autonomous/semi-autonomous Government Organizations and Public Sector Corporations under the administrative control of the Federal Government

Employees, in the present case, who were employed at various autonomous/semi-autonomous Government Organizations and Public Sector Corporations under the administrative control of the Federal Government, claimed that being civil servants they were entitled to be allotted plots from the 75% quota mentioned in paragraph No.1.1(a) of the Terms and Conditions of the said Scheme

Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation ("Housing Foundation") insisted that employees in question were entitled to be allotted plots from the 8% quota mentioned in paragraph No.1.1(b) of the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme

High Court allowed constitutional petitions filed by employees and considered whether their status was that of a civil servant, and consequently declared that they were entitled to be allotted plots from the 75% quota

Legality

Eligibility criteria laid down in the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme was not with reference to being a civil servant but was mainly with reference to being employees of different categories and it did not matter whether the applicant was a civil servant or not

Paragraphs No. 1.1(a) & (b) of the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme made no mention whatsoever to "civil service" or "civil servant" and, thus, the entire discussion made by the High Court, in its impugned judgment regarding the employees being civil servants or not was completely beside the point apart from being irrelevant

Admittedly employees in question were employees of various autonomous/semi-autonomous Government Organizations and Public Sector Corporations under the administrative control of the Federal Government and, thus, their applications for allotment of residential plots in the Scheme attracted only paragraph No. 1.1(b) of the Terms and Conditions of the Scheme fixing a quota of 8% of the plots

Appeal was allowed and impugned judgment of High Court was set aside.

Any person who was a government/civil servant was not eligible to be appointed to the post of Lambardar.

One of the petitioners was employed as Judicial Assistant in the Supreme Court, while the other one was employed as Senior Translator in the High Court

Both petitioners were not found to be eligible to appear in the exam. for the posts in question

Contention of petitioners was that they could be considered to be holding post of "Judicial officers" and also had the relevant experience (in terms of years) to qualify for the posts in question

Validity

Rule 8(1)(d) of Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 provided that in case of appointment to post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, apart from possessing the qualification mentioned in Rule 8(1)(a) of said Rules, (candidate) had to be a practising advocate of the High Court and courts subordinate thereto with a minimum practice of six years or he should have held a "Judicial office" for a period not less than six years, with a clean record of service

Admittedly petitioners were not practising advocates of High Court or courts subordinate thereto

Office of Judicial Assistant and that of Senior Translator were not at par with a "Judicial Office"

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

One of the petitioners was employed as Judicial Assistant in the Supreme Court, while the other one was employed as Senior Translator in the High Court

Both petitioners were not found to be eligible to appear in the exam for the posts in question

Contention of petitioners were that they could be considered to be holding post of "Judicial officers" and also had the relevant experience (in terms of years) to qualify for the posts in question

Validity

Rule 8(1)(d) of Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 provided that in case of appointment to post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, apart from possessing the qualification mentioned in R.8(1)(a) of said Rules, (candidate) had to be a practising advocate of the High Court and courts subordinate thereto with a minimum practice of six years or he should have held a "Judicial office" for a period not less than six years, with a clean record of service

Admittedly petitioners were not practising advocates of High Court or courts subordinate thereto

Office of Judicial Assistant and that of Senior Translator were not at par with a "Judicial Office"

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner, claiming to be resident of said union council applied for the post and successfully passed the assessment test but was refused an offer letter by the Education Department (respondents) on grounds that he was resident of other union council

Contentions of petitioner were that he had passed the assessment test and was shown to be eligible for the post; that out of the eleven (11) successful candidates, he was the only one not to be issued an offer letter; that he was discriminated against, notwithstanding the fact that he had been declared as successful for the post, and that he used to be a resident of the other union council but later on shifted to the specified union council

Validity

To support his contention that he belonged to the specified union council, petitioner produced his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC), permanent residence certificate, domicile certificate and residence certificates, however petitioner's previous Identity card, domicile certificate and permanent residence certificate mentioned that he belonged to the other union council

Comments of "mukhtiarkar (revenue)" and ."taluka matiari ", showed that the petitioner was originally inhabitant of other union council but when he applied for the post in question, he ceased to reside in said union council and presently was residing in specified union council in a house owned by his uncle

Petitioner had not produced any document to establish as to when he transferred his residence from other to specified union council

Documents produced by petitioner in support of his contention that he was resident of specified union council were of subsequent dates, i.e. after filing of present petition and said documents were seemingly procured after the advertisement of post in question

Such conduct of petitioner was, prima facie, proof that he had not approached the court with clean hands

Petitioner was not entitled to be appointed against any vacant post in the specified union council

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.