Classification

2023 PCrLJ 1156 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Classification

Any given item of judicial evidence may attract more than one of the labels by which varieties of evidence have been classified

Principal labels are (i) Testimony, (ii) Hearsay evidence, (iii) Documentary evidence, (iv) Real evidence and (v) Circumstantial evidence

Testimony means direct evidence; hearsay, an indirect evidence; documentary evidence means presentation of facts through documents; real evidence includes material things (like case property)

In addition to material objects, real evidence also includes documents, physical appearance of persons and animals, demeanour of witnesses, intonation of voices on a tape recording, views, inspections out of courts of locus in quo or of some object which it is impossible or highly inconvenient to bring to court, and, possibly, out-of-court demonstrations or re-enactments of acts or events into which Court is inquiring

Circumstantial evidence means evidence of relevant facts like motive, plans and preparatory acts, capacity, opportunity, identity, continuance, failure to give evidence, failure to provide evidence and standards of comparison.

2023 PLD 202 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

ClassificationDistinctionDamages can be classified into two kinds/types/sorts, such as general damages and special damages

Difference between general damages and special damages is that the former is initially quantified by the person making the claim, while the latter is assessed by the Court.

2018 PLC(CS) 243 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

AppointmentAdvertisement for appointment of Line SuperintendentRequisite qualification being Matric with 3 years diploma in Electrical/Electronic TechnologyNon-appointment of petitioners due to having higher qualificationScopeDiscriminationFundamental rightsCriteria/policy of departmentClassificationPetitioners, in the present case, were refused appointment on account of their higher qualificationValidity

Eligibility/qualification mentioned in the advertisement was considered as minimum criteria and candidates below required standard were not entitled to apply

No embargo was put on the candidates having higher qualification as they had fulfilled the minimum criteria

Appointments were to be made in a transparent manner after inviting applications from those who were eligible, deserving and desirous

Principles of merits should have been safeguarded

Refusal to appoint petitioners merely on the ground of their being over-qualified was an encroachment upon their rights

Petitioners had been deprived of their rights and they had suffered illegal exercise of discretion

Impugned actions were in violation of merit and transparency

Where appointments were to be made in exercise of discretionary powers then such powers had to be employed in a reasonable manner

Exercise of such powers unreasonably could be judicially reviewed

Validity of appointment process could be checked through selection procedure prescribed and adopted followed with rigour, objectively, transparency and due diligence to ensure obedience to law

Process of appointment would be unguided, perfunctory, mechanical, haphazard, discrete and unreasonable in absence of any criteria

Impugned criteria/process had never been geared to search and select the best man for the post

Such act of authorities was discriminatory and in violation of Art.25 of the Constitution

Any criteria/policy/instruction depriving the over-qualified persons from applying a particular job could not be termed as reasonable classification under the law

Class of less-qualified persons could not be put in advantageous position vis-à-vis over-qualified persons

Reason posed by the authority for not considering the petitioners for appointment was not reasonable rather resulted in inequality among citizens

Right person should be engaged in the right job which could not be done unless there was an open competition

Posts could not be filled by the method of competition when arbitrary classification was made between different classes of citizens

Any departmental instruction/direction/rules which were inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights were void

Constitution being a basic document was to be treated higher than other instructions/ rules/statutes

When a document in the shape of law/rules/ instructions/criteria given by any competent authority was in conflict with the Constitution then to such extent same was liable to be declared unconstitutional

Every citizen should have the right subject to such qualification if any prescribed by law to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation and to conduct any lawful trade or business

Said fundamental right would include the right of a citizen to compete and participate for appointment to a post in any government department

Right of open competition could not be exercised unless process of appointment was transparent, fair, just and free from any complaint

Act of department had depicted discriminatory treatment which could not be recognized under the law

All persons were equal before the law and were entitled to equal protection of law

Impugned criteria/policy of the department being subordinate legislation could not control or override law and Constitution

Criteria/policy could be challenged if same was in conflict with law or Fundamental Rights of citizen

Right guaranteed under the Constitution could not be taken away by ignoring any provision of the Constitution

State was bound to secure the well-being of the citizens and to promote and protect employment

Limitation could be imposed but such limitation must be rational and proportionate

If such limitation was imposed through an executive action then such action must be taken in exercise of powers conferred by law or in accordance with Constitution or Fundamental Rights guaranteed thereunder

Impugned departmental instruction/ criteria/policy was not backed by any law and same was not sustainable in the eye of law

Impugned orders passed by the department were declared to be illegal and without lawful authority

Department was directed to issue appointment letters to the petitioners within a period of 30 days without disturbing any other person employed due to their acts

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 32 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Classification

Damages are of two kinds: Special damages and General damages.

2016 PTD 1824 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 25Pakistan Customs Tariff CodeDuty structureClassificationDiscrimination

Petitioner was manufacturer of BOPET film (polyester films) and its grievance was that duty for PET Resin for making PET film was higher to PET Resin imported for making bottles and polyester yarn, which was discriminatory

Validity

Yarn grade was not only being used for textile purpose that catered to the most fundamental need of people (clothing) but for export as well, whereas film grade resin was being applied for making sticker etc., which were put on plastic bottles used in many drinks (plastic industry) and consumed locally

Such was not merely chemical formula of subject raw material (Intrinsic Viscosity) that was considered solely for imposing a certain customs duty on its import but the purpose and object for which was physically utilized by two different manufacturers that mattered the most in introducing two different regimes of duty on the same item

Rationale behind such decision was not against the principle of reasonable classification or any of the fundamental rights of petitioners to justify invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution

End use of a particular item, the purpose for which it was being used and import and the scope/limit to which it was being used could be the rational factors to maintain two different regimes of duty on the import of given items

Petitioner was not entitled to receive back differential amount of duty

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 PLD 146 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25 & 199Equality of citizensClassificationConstitutional jurisdiction of the High CourtScope

Classification which was not arbitrary, capricious or violative of the doctrine of equality could not be questioned in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

2014 SCMR 570 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Civil servants on duty and retiredClassificationDiscrimination

Pensioners have been classified as a separate group/class from the one, who are in service, the question of discrimination or violation of Art. 25 of the Constitution does not arise as the two groups are not to be dealt with in the same manner.

2014 PLC(CS) 831 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Civil servants on duty and retiredClassificationDiscrimination

Pensioners have been classified as a separate group/class from the one, who are in service, the question of discrimination or violation of Art. 25 of the Constitution does not arise as the two groups are not to be dealt with in the same manner.