| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 339 2020 SLD 339 2020 PLC 113 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-2650 of 2019, decision Dated: 17-05-2019. HearingDated: 14-05-2019.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE AGHA FAISAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ghulam Asghar Pathan and Irshad Ali SharSalman Talibuddin, Advocate General Sindh.
Respondent(s) by: Mukesh Kumar G. Karara No.3.
C.P. No. D-2650 of 2019, decision Dated: 17-05-2019. HearingDated: 14-05-2019.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE AGHA FAISAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ghulam Asghar Pathan and Irshad Ali SharSalman Talibuddin, Advocate General Sindh.
Respondent(s) by: Mukesh Kumar G. Karara No.3.
MS. SABAVSTHE PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 18,199,199(5),208
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.IR.10
(a) Civil service--- ----Preliminary test---Appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges---Test of candidates---Leakage of a question paper---Cancellation of test---Holding of retest---Proportionality, principle of---Applicability---Preliminary test was cancelled due to leakage of a question paper and authority ordered for retest---Validity---Credibility of preliminary test had become doubtful---Petitioner had failed to demonstrate violation of any Fundamental Right---Mere appearance in the preliminary test result of which was not announced did not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner---Fair opportunity after scrapping the first test had been afforded to all the candidates to re-sit in the retest but petitioner had failed to sit in the same---No discrimination had been caused to the petitioners in circumstances---Leakage of a question paper was sufficient to besmirch and taint the preliminary test and for a retest---No official result had been announced of cancelled test and petitioner had calculated her marks on the basis of answer key---Self-calculation by the petitioner of her marks did not justify to allow her to sit in the second written test without participation in the retest---No impediment existed for the petitioner to opt the retest/retake examination but she herself had failed to avail that fair opportunity---Allowing petitioner to sit in the second written test without qualifying retest would be discrimination to those candidates who had sit in the preliminary test and after cancellation they had again sit in retake without any demur and doubts---Court under Art.199 of the Constitution could not exercise unfettered or unrestricted power to administer equity not based on justifiable foundation---Court could quash exercise of discretionary powers in which there was no reasonable relation between the objective which was sought to be achieved and the means used to that end or where punishment imposed by administrative bodies or inferior Courts were out of proportion---Decision taken for the retest was proportionate, well balanced and harmonious---No illegality and impropriety had been pointed out in the impugned order for…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492