Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Case Summary: The petitioner, a candidate for the post of Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, challenged the non-awarding of marks for two defective questions (Q74 and Q96) in the competitive examination held on 19.10.2025. The petitioner scored 48/100, claiming that the two defective questions should have added grace marks to help meet the 50% passing threshold for eligibility for the second subjective test. The Respondents clarified that the two defective questions were excluded from the total, reducing the total questions to 98 and recalculating the passing marks to 49. All candidates were treated equally, and the petitioner was not discriminated against. The court held that administrative actions of the Chief Justice regarding judicial recruitment are immune from judicial review under Article 199, unless mala fide or illegal action is shown. No such exceptional circumstance was proven. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. Sections/Articles Used: Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (No statutory sections like Penal or Civil Code were invoked; the case concerns constitutional jurisdiction and administrative law.) Two 2-Word Descriptions for the Case: Examination Dispute Grace Marks O R D E R This petition raises a conundrum as to whether petitioner being a contesting candidate for the competitive examination for the post of Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate is entitled for the grace marks of two defective questions? The grievance raised in the memorandum of petition in brief is that the Petitioner having fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the post of Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate1 appeared in the competitive examination reported to have held on 19th October, 2025 and secured 48 marks out of 100. Per petitioner, two questions being question No. 74 and 96 were out of course which fact was also admitted by the Respondents but despite that, he wasn’t awarded the grace marks which were unanimously awarded to the contesting candidates. Having faced such fact, the petitioner approached to the Respondent No.4 but he wasn’t redressed, hence this petition was filed. Having received the petition at hand,…