Muhammad Ewaz Zehri (Baloch) V. Chairman Selection Committee For Appointment of District and Sessions Judges and 10 others,
PLC (C.S) 2016 1267 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a lawyer who took a written test for appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Balochistan, conducted by a Selection Committee of High Court judges. He failed the test and filed a constitutional petition claiming the results were the product of favouritism, nepotism, and discrimination based on his caste and tribe. He asked the court to have his answer sheet re-evaluated by a third party, sought disqualification of some successful candidates, and wanted an upcoming interview stayed.
The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition outright. It found no evidence of bias or unfair treatment, noting that answer sheets were coded to hide candidates' identities during marking, ensuring confidentiality and fairness. Experienced judges of proven integrity had evaluated the papers. The court itself rechecked the petitioner's answer sheet and found the marking accurate, with no errors in totals or unmarked sections. It also noted that candidates who succeeded included people from the petitioner's own ethnic background, undermining his discrimination claim.
The judges strongly criticized the petitioner for making unfounded allegations against them, saying he was trying to dress up his personal failure as institutional bias. The court held that unsuccessful candidates often believe they performed better than they actually did, and that re-evaluation cannot be ordered without genuine grounds. This case matters because it reinforces that courts will not casually order re-checking of exam results and that serious allegations like bias or mala fide must be backed by real evidence, not mere dissatisfaction with outc
اس مقدمے کا تعلق ایک وکیل سے ہے جس نے بلوچستان میں ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ اینڈ سیشن جج کے عہدے پر تقرری کے لیے تحریری امتحان دیا تھا، جو ہائی کورٹ کے ججوں پر مشتمل ایک سلیکشن کمیٹی نے منعقد کیا تھا۔ وہ اس امتحان میں ناکام رہا اور اس نے ایک آئینی درخواست دائر کی جس میں دعویٰ کیا گیا کہ نتائج جانبداری، اقربا پروری اور اس کی ذات اور قبیلے کی بنیاد پر امتیازی سلوک کا نتیجہ ہیں۔ اس نے عدالت سے استدعا کی کہ اس کی جوابی شیٹ کا از سرِ نو جائزہ کسی تیسرے فریق سے کروایا جائے، کچھ کامیاب امیدواروں کی نااہلیت کا مطالبہ کیا، اور آئندہ ہونے والے انٹرویو پر حکم امتناعی چاہا۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے یہ درخواست یکسر خارج کر دی۔ عدالت نے پایا کہ جانبداری یا غیر منصفانہ سلوک کا کوئی ثبوت موجود نہیں، اور نشاندہی کی کہ نمبرات دیتے وقت امیدواروں کی شناخت چھپانے کے لیے جوابی شیٹس کو کوڈ کیا گیا تھا، جس سے رازداری اور شفافیت یقینی بنائ