Advertised posts

2024 PLC(CS) 1190 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Advertised postsEligibility

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.

2024 PLC(CS) 1190 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Advertised postsEligibility

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.

2024 PLC(CS) 1190 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Advertised postsEligibility

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.

2023 PLC(CS) 749 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionConcealment of factsAdvertised postsRejection of candidaturePetitioners applied for posts in question and their candidature was rejected for concealing material factsValidity

At the time of submission of their application forms, petitioners concealed their previous involvement in criminal cases

Disclosure of involvement in some offence was a material fact and it was not expected from petitioners, who were to join police department to hide such material fact

Police official should always be honest and law abiding

It was not expected from a police man to get himself recruited in the department through misrepresentation, misstatement or false statement

High Court declined to interfere in decision made by the authorities

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 PLC(CS) 1191 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Advertised postsEducational criteria for candidatesEquivalency of educational certificates

"Inter Grade Drawing Examination (IDE) Certificate issued by the Controller Inspector of Drawing Grade Examinations for Sindh Directorate of Schools Education

Said "IDE Certificate" was equivalent to "Drawing Master (DM) one year Certificate" of Registrar Departmental Examination (RDE),Peshawar

Drawing Mater (DM) Certificates issued by the recognized Institutions of Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had the same status, as there was no law and rules to prove that certificates of both the Institutions were not equivalent

Petitioner-candidate had done his Drawing Master (DM) certificate from Sindh which was equivalent to one year DM certificate of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Directorate of Curriculum Teaching in Education

High Court directed appointing authority to consider appointment of the petitioner against one of the vacant posts

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2018 SCMR 414 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Advertised postAcademic qualification for candidatesDegree issued after last date for submitting application for the post

At the time of submitting his application for the post in question, appellant had not received his degree on basis of which he applied for the post

Appellant completed his degree in January, 2014 (i.e. before the last date for submission of application for the post), however, the degree was formally issued in March, 2015 for reasons beyond his control

Degree itself showed that the appellant had successfully completed the requisite course work and examination in the academic year 2014

Transcript issued by the concerned institute also verified the fact that the appellant had completed his degree in January, 2014

Fact that the degree was formally issued in year 2015 was not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case of much significance

Furthermore appellant was at the top of the list (of candidates) on the basis of his performance in the test and interview

Impugned judgment of the High Court whereby appellant was held to be not qualified to hold the post in question was set-aside

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2015 SCMR 74 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Contract employmentAdvertised postsSelection processIrregularities and non-observance of codal formalities in selection processTermination from serviceReinstatement in service after re-processing selection of each appointeeLocus poenitentiae, rule ofScope

Respondents participated in the selection process, whereafter they were issued appointment letters and joined their respective services

Subsequently respondents were issued termination letters on the basis that their appointments had been made without observing codal formalities, and the official who had signed their appointment letters was not competent to do so

Respondents filed constitutional petition before the High Court, which was allowed and impugned termination orders were set aside with the directions that a Committee should be constituted to re-process the case of each respondent; that in case any of the respondents had submitted a fake document, or there was any criminal case pending against him, or he was not a resident of the area for which recruitments were made or otherwise did not meet the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement on the basis of which he was appointed, such respondent shall not be inducted into service, and that all other respondents shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with effect from the date on which their services were terminated

Validity

Such order passed by the High Court was absolutely valid and it had been left to the department itself to scrutinize/examine the eligibility of the respondents

High Court gave directions to retain those who passed the eligibility test by applying the rule of locus poenitentiae, notwithstanding that there was some irregularity in the process of selection, may be on account of one of the members (of the recruitment committee) who was said to be incompetent to act as appointing authority, and those who were not eligible/qualified were to be relieved from service

Department had to act fairly in terms of the directions of the High Court and take further action

Supreme Court directed that re-selection process, as mandated by the High Court, should be completed within a period of two months without fail

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2015 PLC(CS) 315 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Contract employmentAdvertised postsSelection processIrregularities and non-observance of codal formalities in selection processTermination from serviceReinstatement in service after re-processing selection of each appointeeLocus poenitentiae, rule ofScope

Respondents participated in the selection process, whereafter they were issued appointment letters and joined their respective services

Subsequently respondents were issued termination letters on the basis that their appointments had been made without observing codal formalities, and the official who had signed their appointment letters was not competent to do so

Respondents filed constitutional petition before the High Court, which was allowed and impugned termination orders were set aside with the directions that a Committee should be constituted to re-process the case of each respondent; that in case any of the respondents had submitted a fake document, or there was any criminal case pending against him, or he was not a resident of the area for which recruitments were made or otherwise did not meet the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement on the basis of which he was appointed, such respondent shall not be inducted into service, and that all other respondents shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with effect from the date on which their services were terminated

Validity

Such order passed by the High Court was absolutely valid and it had been left to the department itself to scrutinize/examine the eligibility of the respondents

High Court gave directions to retain those who passed the eligibility test by applying the rule of locus poenitentiae, notwithstanding that there was some irregularity in the process of selection, may be on account of one of the members (of the recruitment committee) who was said to be incompetent to act as appointing authority, and those who were not eligible/qualified were to be relieved from service

Department had to act fairly in terms of the directions of the High Court and take further action

Supreme Court directed that re-selection process, as mandated by the High Court, should be completed within a period of two months without fail

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.