Disqualifications for candidates

High Court in the impugned judgment the High Court had addressed all the issues those were brought forth in the recruitment process

Recommendations made by the High Court were in furtherance of clarity in the (recruitment) process and certainly would defeat any chance of nepotism, favourtism and undue enrichment of individuals

High Court had also given directions to establish an institute for training of vaccinators and in the meanwhile, the successful candidates of the interview had been required to undergo training of vaccinator

Said direction of High Court was specifically very timely and beneficial to public at large when such vaccinators were primarily meant to deal with infants and the younger generation

No fundamental right of the petitioners had been infringed because the recruitment process was initiated through advertisement with certain terms and conditions and only those who fulfilled those conditions were eligible to be appointed

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused.

Candidate in question was convicted on four counts under different provisions of law and sentenced for a term of one year and six months imprisonment against each count

Sentences were ordered to run concurrently

Question was whether conviction on four counts and a sentence of one year and six months on each count was to be seen cumulatively or in the perspective of being served consecutively in the context of S. 27(2)(i) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 ("Act") read with Art. 63(1)(h) of the Constitution

Held, that benefit of running of the sentences concurrently was only to the extent of the period of incarceration in jail and the same would have no effect on the sentences awarded to a person on different counts which had to be read cumulatively for the purposes of disqualification envisaged by Art. 63(1)(h) of the Constitution and S. 27(2)(i) of the Act

For purposes of Art. 63(1)(h) of the Constitution and S. 27(2)(i) of the Act, the portion of sentence actually served was of no relevance and the disqualification was attracted on the basis of conviction and sentence "awarded" as opposed to served

Similarly when a person was convicted and sentenced for more than two years, but for a number of possible and perfectly legitimate reasons, he was released after serving a period of less than two years, the bar of Art. 63(1)(h) and S. 27(2)(i) of the Act would still be attracted, as the material consideration was conviction and sentencing and not the actual time for which the convict served his sentence. [Ch. Zahid Iqbal v. Returning Officer NA-162 (Sahiwal III) and 3 others 2013 CLC 1856 approved].

Suspension of the sentence awarded to the candidate would have no consequence on his conviction which was complete as soon as the person charged had been found guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction

Conviction of the candidate was relevant in the context of Art. 63(1)(h) of the Constitution and S. 27(2)(i) of the Punjab Local Governments Act, 2013 ("Act")

Suspension of sentence would have no consequence on the conviction of the candidate the purposes of being qualified to contest either the local bodies elections or the elections for the Legislative Assemblies

Unless the conviction was specifically suspended by the Appellate Court by assigning cogent reasons therefor, or the appeal of the candidate was ultimately allowed and his conviction as well as sentence were set aside by the Appellate Court, the conviction of the candidate would continue to hold the field and the disqualification incurred by him, by reason of this conviction, shall remain intact.

Person in service of any 'statutory body' or a 'body' which was owned or controlled by the Provincial, Federal or Local Government or, in which any of such Government had a controlling share or interest

Scope

Person in the service of "statutory body" or "body" of the kind mentioned in S. 27(2)(e) performed "public service" and despite falling within the class of employees in service of Pakistan was not a "civil servant" within the purview of S. 2(a) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and or S. 2(a) of the Services Tribunals Act, 1973.

Person in service of any 'statutory body' or a 'body' which was owned or controlled by the Provincial, Federal or Local Government or, in which any of such Government had a controlling share or interest

Regular and contractual employees

Disqualification under S. 27(2)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 did not make any distinction between the "regular" or "contractual employee" of the statutory body or the (type of) body mentioned under the said section.

"Person in service of any 'statutory body' or a 'body' which was owned or controlled by the Provincial, Federal or Local Government or, in which any of such Government had a controlling share or interest"

Meaning

For the purposes of attracting disqualification under S. 27(2)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, it was to be seen that the candidate or the elected member of the local body was in the service of "statutory body" or "body", which was owned and controlled by or that controlling share or interest therein was of Federal, Provincial or Local Government

Service of a "statutory body" or "body" of the kind mentioned in S. 27(2)(e) was undoubtedly "public service" within the contemplation of S. 27(2)(g), (h) and (i) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013.

Disqualification on account of dual nationality within the contemplation of S. 27(2)(a) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 would only apply as long as any person continued to hold citizenship and or nationality of any other foreign State, the moment he renounced such dual nationality and was a citizen of Pakistan he was qualified to contest elections (for Punjab Local Government), unless of course disqualification on account of holding dual citizenship was inflicted by the "Election Commission" under S. 27(3)(b) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013.