Competitive examination

2025 PLC(CS) 1248 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Regln. 8(6)(a)(ii)Competitive examinationUpper age limit, requirement ofScope

Relief sought by the petitioners/candidates was the grant of age relaxation to enable them to participate in the examination

Validity

The process is governed under statutory provisions of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2023, ('the Regulations 2023')

Provision of Regln. 8(6)(a)(ii) of the Regulations 2023 stipulates that "A candidate must not be less than twenty-one (21) years of age and not more than thirty (30) years of age as of 1st September of the advertisement year."

Provision under Regln. 8(6)(a)(ii) of the Regulations 2023 establishes that respondents/SPSC has adhered to the procedure prescribed under the applicable statute, which is lawful, just and proper

Therefore, the High Court finds no basis to declare the said process as illegal or tainted with mala fide intent, as such an act would amount to unwarranted judicial overreach

Grant of upper age relaxation is not absolute right and remains subject to the discretion of the relevant authorities

No irregularity or illegality is found on the part of respondents/SPSC

Constitutional petition, filed by candidates, being merit-less was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS)N 3 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

R. 5 (a) [as amended by notification dated 26th June, 1969] & AnnexureSindh Public Service Commission Act (XI of 1989), Ss. 7, 11 & 3Public Service CommissionCompetitive examinationGrant of grace marks to deserving candidateCandidate having obtained 472 marks in the written part of examination wherein minimum aggregate was 450 marksCandidate failing to get qualifying marks in one written paper receiving 16 marks instead of 17Non-framing of "Regulations" for performance of Public Service Commission [Commission]EffectDiscretionary powerExercise ofScope

Public Service Commission was bound to frame "Regulations" for performance of its functions and transacting business assigned to it

Failure of Commission to frame "Regulations" by itself was mala fide behaviour/conduct on its part

Annexure "A" to Sindh Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, providing that no "grace marks should be allowed to any candidate" was an arbitrary decision of the Commission without any backing of Act/Rules/Regulations

Commission would not be guilty of violation of any Act/Rules or Regulation in case of allowing grace marks to the 'deserving candidates'

Commission had already taken practical steps for the next phase of examination on the basis of result without realizing that number of qualified candidates for viva-voce test was to be determined on completion of 15 days time mentioned on marks sheet to rectify "inadvertent error or omission"

Candidates who appeared in the written test had legitimate right to get their marks re-counted within 15 days to assure their possibility of qualifying for the next phase of competitive examination

Commission had violated the petitioner's right to get his marks rectified within 15 days and qualify if possible as a result thereof

Hasty decision of Commission to start interview test before the cutoff date for making an application for re-totaling/re-counting of marks was an unfair and arbitrary manner

Such act of the Commission was not bona fide discharge of public duty assigned to it

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances

Commission was directed by the High Court to frame its regulations in exercise of powers conferred under S. 11 of Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 1989 within specified time.

2016 PLC(CS) 115 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977), S.7Constitutional petitionCivil serviceCompetitive examinationAdvertisement for the post of lecturerPost vacated due to non-joining of selected candidateWaiting listScopeDiscriminationLocus standi

Public Service Commission/ Government should re-advertise/advertise the post which had remained vacant by non-joining of selected candidates or in case of subsequent requisition in the ordinary course of time

Practice of keeping a 'waiting list' in a 'competitive examination system' was nothing but an attempt to introduce a contradictory concept

Waiting list' was maintained in a `qualifying examination' while in a `competitive examination' all vacancies were filled up in one go

When selection was made out of one 'competitive examination', it could not be bifurcated into two or more

Selection had to be one when 'competitive examination' was one and in no event it could be said that any number of selections could be made of the same `competitive examination'

Petitioner had alleged discrimination on account of the appointment of "X" in place of "Y" but he was not made party in the constitutional petition

Discriminatory treatment could not be gone through appropriately in circumstances

Petitioner's name was never placed on the alleged 'waiting list' rather she was informed that her name could not be recommended for appointment

Petitioner had failed to establish any vested right in her favour

Petitioner was a low merit candidate and was not recommended by the Public Service Commission for the advertised post

No vested right of the petitioner had been infringed

Public Service Commission had never conveyed the petitioner that she was the next candidate in the 'merit list'/'waiting list' for alternate nomination and/or she would be recommended if principal nominee did not join the post

Until and unless department did cancel the offer of appointment issued to the principal nominee and thereafter a request was made to the Public Service Commission for 'alternate nomination' till then the offer of appointment of recommendee candidate would remain in field

Petitioner did not have any right or otherwise claim her recommendation against the subject post

Department had cancelled the offer of appointment of principal nominee and thereafter had requested for `alternate nomination' but the same was not acceded to by the Public Service Commission due to expiry of requisite time

Petitioner was barred from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court in presence of availability of alternate remedy

Constitutional petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground also

Petitioner was never discriminated by the Public Service Commission and was not entitled to claim an equal treatment under the given facts, she could not be selected and appointed on the post which had fallen vacant as vacant posts including incoming/ requisitioned posts had to be re-advertised/advertised

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 PLC(CS) 1091 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

R. 14Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2013, R.23Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2014, R.17Office memorandum No.1/29/87/-T.V. dated 19-03-1991Competitive examination

First choice of candidate being Police Service of Pakistan but he could not be awarded his choice due to 4th position in the merit list

One nominee of Police Service of Pakistan declined to accept the offer and appellant made representation for allocation of the seat to him but same was refused

Validity

Vacancy which had been created in the present case was not with regard to the original advertisement rather was a carried over vacancy due to repeated deferments obtained by the nominee of the same

Rule 17 of Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2014, did not show any distinction with regard to original or carried over vacancy rather it had provided the process for reallocation in case of repeaters or non-joinders

Vacancies were to be filled in line with the office memorandum No.1/29/87/-T.V dated 19-03-1991

Federal Public Service Commission could not point out any rule or regulation by virtue of which allocation on the vacancy created could not be made

Impugned orders were set aside and representation filed by the candidate was allowed

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014 MLD 863 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rr.7 (ii), 8 (vi) & 17 (d)Competitive examinationChancesIneligibility

Appellant was candidate who took competitive examination but his result was not announced as he was not eligible for appearing in examination

Validity

Candidate could avail of three chances of examination, under R.8(vi) of Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2013, which he had availed prior to appearing in competitive examination in year, 2013

Earlier three chances were availed having domicile of province of Punjab and later on candidate got certificate of domicile from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and certificate of State subject and again applied but since it was fourth chance, therefore, he was not entitled to apply and appear in competitive examination held in year 2013

Federal Public Service Commission, under R. 8 (vi) Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2013, reserved right to declare candidature of examinee cancelled, if after announcement of result of written part of examination, candidate was found ineligible in any respect under the rules in examination but it did not mean that the Commission got no authority to declare any candidate ineligible prior to announcement of result

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Federal Public Service Commission

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.