Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 18,25,27

 
Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 18, 25 & 27---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-A---Police service, recruitment in---Appointment letters, non-issuance of---Candidates with criminal record subsequently exonerated, due to absence of evidence---Rule thumb principle law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat and another (2022 SCMR 1770) ['the Faraz Naveed case']---Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court being aggrieved of non-issuance of appointment letters despite recommendations by Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC)---Contention of the respondent / CCPO was that the acquittal of petitioners was due to absence of evidence, therefore, petitioners could not be appointed---Plea of the respondents (Police Department) was that candidates having criminal record or affiliation with any proscribed organization could not be appointed while placing reliance on the Faraz Naveed case---Validity---Record (including reply by respondents) did not show that, in the present case, the parameters and dictum laid down in the Faraz Naveed Case had not been followed while declining the appointment letter---Said judgment (Faraz Naveed Case) required the relevant Authority to form an opinion fairly and equitably that despite exoneration the criminal record suggested that the candidate was a constant threat to the discipline of the police force, police confidence and might demoralize and undermine the environment in department etc.---Said judgment (Faraz Naveed Case) did not support the rule of thumb that in presence of an FIR, even after acquittal the successful candidate recommended by PPSC would be refused appointment letter---Rule of thumb is not even supported by the Standing Order No.6 of 2015 issued by IG Police, Punjab which envisages "candidates having criminal record"---Term "criminal record", denotes a consistent involvement in criminal activities---Such exercise of discretion is declared against the spirit of the judgment in Faraz Naveed Case and violative of S. 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897---Discretion cannot be exercised in mechanical way, when future of a citizen is at stake---Petitioners, being citizens, have fundamental right under Arts. 18 & 25 of the Constitution against discrimination and for choice of occupation and profession---In particular under Art. 27 of the Constitution, a person qualified for appointment is protected from any discrimination, which includes denial for appointment on conjectures and surmises---For having an opinion on the criminal record, the Authority must disclose the reasons, as envisaged in Faraz Naveed Case (supra), based on material gathered from Special Branch or concerned Police Station---Rule of thumb followed by the respondents to refuse appointment was declared ultra vires of the Constitution---Admittedly, the petitioners were named in the FIRs arising out of some family dispute---No evidence or information of their other criminal record was available---Acquittal for no evidence meant that the allegation in FIR was false---Any law abiding citizen, by fate, can be entangled in any criminal case, therefore, his future and fundamental rights under the Constitution cannot be compromised by a rule of thumb---Respondent/ CCPO was directed to issue appointment letters to the petitioners---Constitution petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat and another 2022 SCMR 1770 ref.