2016 P L C (C.S.) 1184
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shakeel Ahmed Baloch, JJ
ABDUL KHALIQ MANDOKHEL and 2 others
Versus
CHAIRMAN, BALOCHISTAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and another
C.P. No.655 of 2015, decided on 23rd May, 2016.
(a) Balochistan Service Tribunal Act (V of 1974) ---
----S. 4--- Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212---Balochistan Public Service Commission
Manual of Recruitment for Selection to Civil Posts, Clauses 5.2, 5.3 & 14.20---Constitutional
petition ---Mainta inability --- Public Service Commission --- Departmental examination ---
Cancellation of paper ---Effect ---Principle of natural justice ---Applicability ---Scope---Final
order ---Departmental authority ---Petitioners appeared in the departmental examination of
Assistant Commissioners/Tehsildars but Public Service Commission cancelled one of the
examination paper and was rescheduled ---Validity ---Any civil servant aggrieved by any final
order whether original or appellate made by departmental authority with regard to any of the
terms and conditions of service might prefer an appeal before the Service Tribunal having
jurisdiction in the matter ---Selection/recommendation made by the Public Service Commission
could not be brought under challenge before the Service Tribuna l by filing an appeal ---Acts of
Public Service Commission did not fall within the category of final order of a departmental
authority ---Public Service Commission was not departmental authority nor it had passed any
order(s) against the petitioners with reg ard to terms and conditions of their service ---Petitioners
having no alternate remedy for redressal of their grievance had rightly invoked the constitutional
jurisdiction of High Court ---Nothing was on record that petitioners or other candidates had used
unfair means or were found cheating the answers from the books or other sources ---Mere
correctness of the answers by the candidates could not be made a basis to hold that the same was
result of cheating/ copying from the relevant books --Conjectures, suspici on and presumption
could not take the place of proof ---Inquiry Committee, in absence of any proof, could not give
observations that the answers to the questions of examination paper were copied from the
relevant books ---No one could be penalized on the bas is of mere presumptive findings ---Public
Service Commission could not cancel result on the basis of presumptive observations of Inquiry
Committee ---Candidates were neither summoned nor afforded any opportunity of hearing by the
Inquiry Committee or Public Service Commission ---Petitioners and other candidates had been
condemned unheard in circumstances ---No notice was served to the petitioners nor they were
provided details of the allegations and opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners for
their defence ---Where procedure had been provided for doing a thing in a particular manner then
same should be done in that manner and not in other way or it should not be done at all ---Rules
of Public Service Commission did not provide for re -evaluation of answer sheets of a
competitive examination ---Chairman Public Service Commission could not appoint any Inquiry
Committee for re -evaluating the answer sheets or cancel the result on the basis of presumptive
findings ---Observations/recommendations made by the Inquiry Committee and minutes of Public
Service Commission to reschedule the examination paper were declared null, void and of no
legal effect ---Public Service Commission was directed to announce the result of examination
paper forthwith ---Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
Ahmad Salman Waris v. Nadeem Akhtar PLD 1997 SC 382; Samar Pervaiz v. Board of
Intermediate and Secondary Education PLD 1971 SC 838; University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad
PLD 1965 SC 90; Abdul Bashir v. Government of Balochistan 2001 PLC (C. S) 771; Dost
Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan PLD 1980 Quetta 1 and Atta Muhammad Qureshi v.
Settlement Commissioner PLD 1971 SC 61 rel.
(b) Balochistan Service Tribunal Act (V of 1974) ---
----S. 4-- Appeal before Service Tribunal ---Scope--- Appeal before Service Tribunal by civil
servant with regard to any dispute relating to terms and conditions could be preferred---Service
Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter falling within the ambit of terms and
conditions of s ervice except matters of "determination of fitness for promotion of a civil servant
to a higher post".
(c) Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 4 ---Every individual had right to be dealt with in accordance with law.
(d) Public functionaries ---
----Public f unctionaries were required to function within precincts of their powers.
(e) Administration of justice ---
----Where procedure had been provided for doing a thing in a particular manner then same
should be done in that manner and not in any other way or it should not be done at all.
Abdul Bashir v. Government of Balochistan 2001 PLC (C.S.) 771; Dost Muhammad v.
Government of Balochistan PLD 1980 Quetta 1 and Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. Settlement
Commissioner PLD 1971 SC 61 rel.
Mazhar Ilyas Nagi and Baz Muh ammad Kakar for Petitioners.
Naseer Ahmed Bangulzai, Addl. A.G. along with Dilawar Khan Kasi, Law Officer,
BPSC for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th May, 2016.
JUDGMENT
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, J. --- This judgment disposes of Constitution Petition
No.655/2015 wherein the following relief has been claimed by the petitioners:
"Declare that the impugned action/decision of the Commission, as contained in the
Minutes of the Meeting of the Commission held on 19.06.2015, to cancel the paper of
Revenue Law -II of Departmental Examination held on 06.03.2015, is illegal, without
lawful authority, mala fide, void, capricious, arbitrary, in excess of jurisdiction or
colourable exercise of jurisdiction and violative of cardinal principles of natural justice;
1. Set aside the aforesaid decision:
2. Direct the respondents to immediately announce the result of paper of Revenue
Law held on 06.3.2015;
3. Grant any other relief to which the petitioners are found entitled or which is
deemed just and proper by this honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the
case; and
4. Award costs and s pecial compensatory costs under section 35 read with 35- A,
C.P.C. 1908, as amended by the Civil Law Reforms Act, 1994 (PLD 1995 Central
Statures 1), for dragging the petitioners in unnecessary litigation."
2. According to contents of the petition, in the m onth of March, 2015 the petitioners along
with other candidates appeared in Departmental Examination of Assistant
Commissioners/Tehsildars conducted by Balochistan Public Service Commission (hereinafter
"the BPSC"); that the petitioners along with other ca ndidates appeared in nine papers on the
scheduled dates; that after taking the examination, the petitioners and all the other candidates
were awaiting the result but the same was withheld by BPSC for the reasons not known to the
petitioners and the other c andidates; that the petitioners approached the office of the respondents,
but nothing was disclosed; that in June 2015 the petitioners were provided with the copy of the
minutes of the meeting of BPSC dated 19.6.2015 which revealed that the paper of Revenue Law -
II has been cancelled on the recommendation of an Inquiry Committee comprising of two
members of the BPSC which was based on re -evaluation of only 10% answer sheets selected at
random; that on 29.6.2015 the petitioners submitted an application to res pondent No.2 for
providing copy of the inquiry report and result of Revenue Law -II paper, but the same were not
provided. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition was filed by the petitioners on 02.7.2015.
3. The petition was fixed for preliminary hearing o n 03- 7-2015. On the said date learned
counsel for the petitioners informed that the paper of Revenue Law -II has been rescheduled by
BPSC for 06.7.20I5. Learned counsel requested to cancel the rescheduled exam of Revenue
Law-II paper. The request was declin ed by this Court. However, BPSC was restrained from
announcing the result of the rescheduled paper of Revenue Law -II till decision of the instant
petition.
4. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court learned AAG filed para -wise comments on
behalf of the respondents with the signature of respondent No.2.
5. While raising Preliminary Legal Objection in para -wise comments, it has been contended
by BPSC that the result of examination will decide the promotion of the petitioners and as such
the instant petition relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners is barred
by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (hereinafter "the
Constitution").
6. On merits it was contended that after taking charge as Chairman BPSC on 23.4.2015, the
respondent No.1 was informed about some irregularities, specially copying and cheating during
the departmental examination, due to which, an inquiry was ordered by him to be conducted by
two members of the BPSC; that on the basis of the inquiry report, paper of Revenue Law -II was
cancelled and same was rescheduled for 06.7.2015; that all the candidates including the
petitioners were informed through SMS/UMS as well as through heads of their respective
Departments and by other process ; that on the rescheduled date i.e. 06.7.2015, only seven
candidates appeared and the remaining candidates, including the petitioners, did not attempt the
paper despite being present inside the premises of BPSC; that under the Manual of Recruitment,
BPSC h as been vested with powers to decide any issue including cancellation of paper; that on
the basis of inquiry report, the matter was placed before the Full Commission; that the Full
Commission unanimously decided that the paper of Revenue Law -II be reschedu led; that the
petitioners have not been condemned unheard as they have been provided a fair chance by BPSC
to reappear in the said paper.
7. During pendency of the instant petition, 21 other candidates filed an application under
Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for their impleadment as petitioners. The said application was contested
by the respondents by filing reply. However, instead of pressing the same, learned counsel for
the petitioners proceeded with the petition.
8. On 04.8.2015, respondent No.1 appearing in person, stated that prior to his appointment
as Chairman BPSC, on approach by the concerned officer of BPSC, he had set the paper of
Revenue Law -II, but after examination, he was not sent the answer sheets for checking; that on
his appointment as Chairman BPSC on 23.4.2015, he called for the answer sheets of the paper of
Revenue Law -II, which were already checked by someone; that on observing that in few answer
sheets, the answers were verbatim of the text book, he decided to hold an inquiry and to get 10%
answer sheets selected at random to be reevaluated; that he appointed two members of the BPSC
as Inquiry Committee to reevaluate the 10% answer sheets, to make probe and to submit report;
that on the basis of the Inquiry report, the members of BPSC unanim ously decided to cancel the
paper of Revenue Law -II and to retake the same as early as possible; that the said paper was
rescheduled by BPSC for 06.7.2015.
9. In the instant petition arguments were heard on 23.12.2015. However, due to winter
vacations in t he month of January and February, 2016, due to pre -occupation of the bench in
disposal of criminal cases after commencement of judicial year 2016, due to conducting inquiry
of two Qazis and two Additional District and Sessions Judges by one of the member of the bench
(Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan) and due to his appointment as Commission to probe and to
submit report with regard to occurrence of Qazi Kalat, the judgment could not be pronounced
despite lapse of more than four months.
In view of the judgment dated 21.04.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan in the case of M/S MFMY Industries v. Federation of Pakistan, Civil Appeals Nos.1646
and 2000 of 2006 and Civil Petition No.782- K of 2009, the instant petition was fixed for
rehearing on 18.05.2016. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Law Officer of BPSC and learned
AAG were reheard on 19.05.2016.
10. With regard to maintainability of the instant petition in view of bar of Article 212 of the
Constitution, learned counsel for the petitioners s tated that an appeal before Service Tribunal can
be filed by a civil servant against a final order made by a departmental authority in respect of any
of the terms and conditions of service; that BPSC is neither the departmental authority of the
petitioners nor it has passed any order in respect of terms and conditions of service of the
petitioners, therefore, the petition is not barred under Article 212 of the Constitution; that the
petitioners having no alternate available remedy have invoked the constitut ional jurisdiction of
this Court for redressal of their grievance.
11. On merits, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the inquiry
ordered by respondent No.1 was unwarranted; that the petitioners have been condemned unheard
throughout; that the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Committee and the decisions made by
BPSC are violative of the principles of natural justice; that in absence of any proof/evidence of
copying/ cheating/ misconduct, the findings of the Inquiry Committee and the decisions made by
BPSC are based on presumptions; that on the basis of reevaluation of only 10% answer sheets
selected at random, the remaining 90% candidates cannot be penalized.
12. Learned Law Officer BPSC stated that the instant petition is ba rred under Article 212 of
the Constitution; that section 20 of the Balochistan General Clauses Act, 1956 empowers
respondent No.1 to cancel any paper and to reschedule the same particularly, when it is found
that while attempting such paper irregularity, c heating and copying has been committed. Learned
Law Officer further stated that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and other
candidates as no disciplinary action has been taken against them by BPSC; that the petitioners
and other candidates ha ve been provided fair opportunity by BPSC to reappear in the paper of
Revenue Law -II.
13. While adopting arguments of Law Officer BPSC, learned AAG also opposed the petition.
14. Heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. It is to be appreciated that in
pursuance of provision of Article 212 of the Constitution, the Federation as well as the Provinces
have enacted respective Service Tribunal Acts whereby appeals by the civil servants relating to
any dispute in regard to the terms and conditi ons of their service are preferred before Service
Tribunals. Such Tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over the matters falling within the ambit of
the terms and conditions of service, except the matters where the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal
is barre d by express provision of an Act of legislature, for e.g. the matter of "determination of
fitness for promotion of a civil servant to a higher post" is excluded from the jurisdiction of the
Service Tribunal.
According to section 4 of the Balochistan Servi ce Tribunal Act, 1974 any civil servant
aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by departmental authority in
respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal
having jurisdiction in the matter. It may also be noticed that the explanation to subsection (b) of
section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 defines the term "departmental
authority" as any authority, other than a tribunal, which is competent to make an order in re spect
of any of the term and conditions of civil servant.
The selection/recommendation made by BPSC cannot be brought under challenge before
Service Tribunal by filing appeal under section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
The acts of BPSC in the instant case do not fall within the category of final order of a
departmental authority, whether original or appellate, within the meaning of section 4 of the
Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974. BPSC is not departmental authority of the petitioners
nor it has passed any order(s) against the petitioners and other candidates with regard to terms
and conditions of their service.
In view of the above, it is concluded that the instant constitution petition is not barred by
Article 212 of the Constitution. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Ahmad Salman
Waris v. Nadeem Akhtar PLD 1997 SC 382 wherein it has been held as follows:
"Therefore, in order to make a matter exclusively cognizable by a Tribunal under the Act,
and to create an ouster of jurisdiction of all other Courts and Tribunals under Article 212
of the Constitution, it must be shown that the matter is agitated by a civil servant as
defined under the Act, it has arisen from a final order of a departmental authority whether
origin al or appellate, it concerns the terms and conditions of the aggrieved civil servant
and that it is not covered by the exceptions mentioned in proviso b(i) and (ii) of section 4
of the Act. If any of the conditions mentioned above are non- existent in a cas e then, the
bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution will not be operative."
The petitioners having no alternate remedy for redressal of their grievance have rightly
invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the constitution.
15. Coming to the merits of the case, the record does not reveal of any written complaint
made to BPSC in respect of paper of Revenue Law -II. It transpires that after his appointment as
Chairman BPSC on 23.4.2015, the respondent No.1, who had set the paper of Revenue Law -II
and had not marked the answer sheets by BPSC for checking, called for the already checked
answer sheets of Revenue Law. -II. By that time, the result of Departmental Examination was not
announced by BPSC. It appears that afte r going through few answer sheets of Revenue Law -II
paper, the respondent No.1, being convinced of cheating on the basis of correctness of the
answers, ordered for inquiry and re -evaluation of 10% answer sheets (selected at random) of
each subject of the D epartmental Examination by two members of BPSC.
16. After re -evaluating only 10% answer sheets selected at random and examining some staff
members of BPSC, the Inquiry Committee made the following observations:
"The Revenue Law II papers (without books) ha d not been checked properly by the
Examiner. He as a professional should have noticed that the Answers are word by word
copied from the relevant books of law or by using other means. Instead of overlooking
this aspect, he should have brought this into the Notice of Senior Member Incharge or
have applied his mind while marking these papers rather than being very generous
thereby passing almost the whole lot.
As regards Criminal Law II (without books) papers. The examiner seems to have applied
his mind while checking them and had noticed that the answers were word by
word/copied from relevant books of law or by using other means, therefore, has been
very strict while marking and as a result a few candidates could clear this paper.
The rest of the papers (with books) were also checked and it was found that the marking
of the papers by the Examiners were fair and satisfactory. It transpires that the Examiners
had applied their mind while marking these papers."
17. The Inquiry Committee made the following recommen dations:
"1. Mr. Asmatullah, a Junior and inexperienced official was working under the direct
control of Member Incharge, BPSC. In view of above, he may be issued with a warning
to be careful/vigilant in future and the same may be kept on record.
2. Sahibz ada Abdul Jalil approach towards the conduct of Examinations seems very
casual/non -serious. A lenient view may be taken in his case by issuing a warning to him
to be careful in future and the same may be kept on record.
3. The Incharge Secrecy and Incharge Examination Branch's should in future make
it a point to visit the Halls during Examinations frequently in order to see that no cell
phones or other materials are in possession of the candidates.
4. The paper checker had ignored the fact that these papers were copied word by
word from the Relevant Books of Law and was very lenient in checking the paper. He did
not use his mind and was generous in marking thereby passing almost the whole lot. He
may be excluded from the list of paper setters/checkers.
5. Mr. Zia-ul-Haq should not be appointed as Supervisor for a period of two years in
the Examinations to be conducted by BPSC in future.
6. The Revenue Law II (without books) may be cancelled and the same may be re -
advertised.
18. The impugned minutes of the me eting of BPSC dated 19.6.2015 based on the
observations and recommendations of the Inquiry Committee are reproduced herein below:
"The Meeting started with the name of Allah Almighty. The aforesaid meeting was called
by the Chairman, BPSC in connection wit h the inquiry report submitted by Mr.
Muhammad Younas Durrani and Arbab Mohammad Afzal Kasi Members, BPSC relating
to rechecking of 10% of result of Departmental Examination of Assistant
Commissioners/Tehsildar. After deliberations and discussion of the Commission on the
inquiry report submitted by the learned Members, the Commission decided unanimously
that the paper of Revenue Law -II of Departmental Examination of Assistant
Commissioners/ Tehsildar be cancelled in view of recommendations, which was
recomm ended in entirely. The aforesaid examination be arranged as early as possible."
19. Throughout the inquiry proceedings no evidence has come on record to prove that the
petitioners or other candidates had used unfair means or were found cheating the answers from
the books or other sources. It appears that the Inquiry Committee has made observations and
recommendations with regard to Revenue Law -II paper on the basis of mere presumption of
copying due to correctness of the answers. In absence of any complaint or report of cheating by
the invigilating staff and in absence of any incriminating material collected during examination
or during inquiry, mere correctness of the answers by the candidates cannot be made a basis to
hold that the same is result of cheating/copying from the relevant books. According to settled
principles of law, conjectures, suspicion and presumption howsoever strong it may be, cannot
take the place of proof. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Samar Pervaiz v. Board of
Interm ediate and Secondary Education PLD 1971 SC 838 wherein it has been held as follows:
"It is true that domestic Tribunals like a University or a Secondary Board of Education
are free from the fetters and the formalities of a judicial trial, and while these c an,
consistently with the demands of justice, be ignored, it does not, by any means, follow
that such domestic forums, while dealing with valuable rights and privileges of an
individual, can snatch them away on conjectural grounds, even though such grounds may
ostensibly appear to be very plausible but without any valid proof of their tangibility.
However, morally convinced a Judge may feel as to the truth of a particular fact, unless
there is legal proof of its existence, he cannot take it as proved. Conje ctures and suspicion
cannot take the place of proof. A Tribunal's decision must rest not on suspicion but upon
legal grounds established by legal evidence".
20. In the instant case, in absence of any proof of cheating/copying there was no occasion for
the Inquiry Committee to give presumptive observations that the answers to the questions of
Revenue Law -II paper were copied from the relevant books. Similarly, there was also no
occasion for BPSC to cancel the result/paper of Revenue Law -II on the basis of pr esumptive
observations of the Inquiry Committee which were based on rechecking of only 10% papers
selected at random. The remaining 90% candidates cannot be penalized by BPSC on the basis of
mere presumptive findings based on reevaluation of only 10% the basis papers selected at
random.
21. The petitioners and the other candidates were neither summoned nor afforded any
opportunity of hearing by the Inquiry Committee or by the BPSC. According to principles of
natural justice, the petitioners and other candidates cannot be condemned unheard. Reliance in
this regard is placed on the case of University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90,
wherein it has been held as follows:
"That in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the
principles of natural justice have to be observed if the proceedings might result in
consequences affecting "the person or property or other right of the parties concerned."
This rule applies even though there may be no positive words in the statute or legal
document whereby the power is vested to take such proceedings, for, in such cases this
requirement is to be implied into it as the minimum requirement of fairness."
22. Clauses 5.2, 5.3 and 14.20 of the Manual of Recruitment for Selection to Civil Posts
(hereinafter "the Manual") being relevant for decision of the instant petition are reproduced
herein below:
5.2 The Commission will take appropriate action against a candidate who is found
guilty of violating any of the instructions, more specifically if he or she:
a. Furnishes any particular false or incorrect information to gain undue advantage.
b. Suppresses material information to gain undue advantage by not filling any
column of the applications form.
c. Attempts to influence the Members of the Commis sion, the officers and officials
of the Commission, any coopted Member or Examiner.
d. Canvassing in any form with concerned offices/officials of BPSC.
e. Attempts to obtain support for his/her candidature through improper means.
f. Submits forged certificates.
g. Tampers with entries in his/her candidature through improper means.
h. Misbehaves in the Examination Hall.
i. Is found guilty of misconduct during examination/test/interview.
j. Fails to observe the instructions issued by the Commission.
k. Is guilty of impersonation at any stage or in any form.
l. Uses unfair means in a test/Examination.
m. Any other act or omission of a candidate which according to the Commission is
violative of the instructions issued by the Commission.
Procedure for Pro ceeding against the Candidate Found Guilty of violation of
Instructions
5.3a. A candidate found guilty of violating any of the instructions contained in para 5.2
will be served with a notice by the member Incharge giving him period of fifteen days or
less if the urgency demands to explain his position in writing. The notice will provide
details of allegations against the candidates. If his explanation is acceptable, the matter
will be dropped by the Member Incharge.
b. If his explanation is not found plaus ible, the candidate will be given an
opportunity to appear for personal hearing before the Member Incharge for giving his
defence. If a candidate fails to appear in person before the Commission, ex parte
proceedings will be taken against the candidate.
c. The Member will scrutinize the evidence, explanation and defence of the
Candidates, for arriving at a conclusion of whether or not the action or omission of the
candidate calls for action. If the Member Incharge, after going through all facts before
him, decides to proceed against the candidate, he, with the permission of the Chairman
will place the case as special agenda in full Commission meeting for taking action against
the candidate which may include one or more than one of the following:
(1) Cancellat ion of his candidature for the post he had applied.
(2) Permanent disqualification of candidate from applying for any post which is
advertised by Balochistan Public Service Commission.
(3) Registration of a Criminal case if he is found indulging in any criminal act i.e.
forgery etc.
(4) Temporary disqualification of a candidate from applying or appearing in any
examination/test/interview of Balochistan Public Service Commission for a period of one
year or more but not exceeding three years.
(5) Any other ac tion the Commission deems fit to be taken against the candidate.
14.20 Disciplinary cases. In cases where candidates are alleged to have violated
instructions prescribed for a written examinations/ test, they will be given an opportunity
to defend themselv es against the allegations before any action is taken against them.
Where the explanation is held to be unsatisfactory by the Commission, or where the
candidate does not respond, he or she shall be disqualified from that written
examination/test for the pa rticular posts for which the examination/test was held and if
the circumstances of the case so warrant then from all future examinations and selections
of this commission for a definite or indefinite period.
23. In pursuance of above clauses of 'the Manual ', the BPSC did not serve any notice to the
petitioners or the other candidates, did not provide them the details of the allegations, did not
avail explanation in writing from the petitioners and other candidates and did not provide them
opportunity for pe rsonal hearing for giving their defense. The BPSC has not proceeded against
the petitioners and the other candidates according to the procedure as laid down in clause 5.3 (c)
and clause 14.20 of 'the Manual'.
24. According to settled principles of law wher e a procedure has been provided for doing a
thing in a particular manner that thing should be done in that manner and in no other way or it
should not be done at all. Where a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it
must be done by the authority in the manner as prescribed by the statute, else departure from the
rules would invalidate the thing done in the manner other than prescribed by the rules. Reference
in this regard is made to the case of Abdul Bashir v. Government of Balochistan 2001 PLC (C.
S) 771. Reference in this regard is also made to the case of Dost Muhammad v. Government of
Balochistan PLD 1980 Quetta 1. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Atta Muhammad
Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1971 SC 61.
25. Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees right of an individual to be dealt with in
accordance with law. All executive officers, every statutory body and public functionary is
required to function within precincts of its powers, so that, the person concerne d should be
treated in accordance with law as guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution.
Article 4 (2) (a) of the Constitution provides that no action detrimental to the life, liberty,
body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken, except in accordance with law.
26. The provisions of the "Balochistan Public Service Commission Act, 1989", the
"Balochistan Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1995" and the 'Manual' do not
provide for re -evaluation of the answer sheets of a competitive examination by BPSC nor it
authorize respondent No.1 to appoint any Inquiry Committee for re -evaluating the answer sheets
or to cancel the result on the basis of presumptive findings based on re -evaluation of only 10%
papers selected at random.
27. Accordi ng to section 20 of the "Balochistan General Clauses Act, 1956" where, by any
Act, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, scheme, form or bye -laws is conferred then that
power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and
conditions (if any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind, any notifications, orders, rules, scheme,
form, bye -laws so issued. But in the garb of this section, the respondent No.1 is not authorized to
get the answer sheets re -evaluated by an Inqu iry Committee or to reschedule the paper on the
basis of mere presumption of copying/cheating and that too without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners and the other candidates.
28. For the above reasons, the Constitution Petition is acc epted with no order as to cost. The
observations/recommendations made by the Inquiry Committee and the minutes of BPSC dated
19.6.2015 with regard to paper of Revenue Law -II and the decision of the BPSC to reschedule
the same are declared null, void and of no legal effect. The BPSC is directed to immediately
announce the result of paper of Revenue Law -II of the petitioners and all the other candidates
held on 06.3.2015.
ZC/38/Bal. Petition allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.