Petition of Civil Judges Dismissed
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved twelve individuals who had been appointed as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates in the North-West Frontier Province on a contract basis, initially for one year and later extended for a second year. Their selection had involved a written test and interview conducted by a committee that included four High Court judges. After completing two years of judicial service, the Chief Justice recommended that the government regularize their appointments, but the government refused. The petitioners then went to the High Court asking it to order the government to appoint them permanently as Civil Judges, but their petition was dismissed. They then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. It ruled that appointments to such posts (BPS-16 to 20) must be made through the Public Service Commission, based on a proper examination process, as required by the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978 and related rules. Since the petitioners had not gone through this required process, the court could not order the government to appoint them permanently, even though a Chief Justice had recommended it.
The court emphasized that judicial independence does not place judges or judicial appointees above the law. Rather, following the law strictly is what preserves the judiciary's credibility. Even well-meaning recommendations cannot override legal requirements. This case matters because it reinforces that government appointments, including judicial ones, must follow proper legal procedures, and that no authority can bypass established law, even for seemingly deserving candidates.
یہ مقدمہ بارہ افراد سے متعلق تھا جنہیں شمال مغربی سرحدی صوبے میں سول جج کم جوڈیشل مجسٹریٹ کے طور پر معاہدے کی بنیاد پر مقرر کیا گیا تھا، ابتدائی طور پر ایک سال کے لیے اور بعد ازاں دوسرے سال کے لیے توسیع دی گئی۔ ان کا انتخاب ایک تحریری امتحان اور انٹرویو کے ذریعے ہوا تھا جو ایک کمیٹی نے منعقد کیا تھا جس میں ہائی کورٹ کے چار جج شامل تھے۔ عدالتی خدمات میں دو سال مکمل کرنے کے بعد چیف جسٹس نے حکومت کو سفارش کی کہ ان کی تقرریوں کو مستقل کیا جائے، لیکن حکومت نے انکار کر دیا۔ درخواست گزار پھر ہائی کورٹ گئے اور استدعا کی کہ حکومت کو حکم دیا جائے کہ انہیں سول جج کے طور پر مستقل مقرر کیا جائے، لیکن ان کی درخواست خارج کر دی گئی۔ اس کے بعد انہوں نے سپریم کورٹ میں اپیل کی اجازت کے لیے درخواست دی۔
سپریم کورٹ نے خارج کرنے کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ایسی اسامیوں (بی پی
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 1998 Supreme Court 602 Present to: SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN AND SH. IJAZ NlSAR, MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN and 11 others Versus GOVT. OF N.-W.F.P., through CHIEF SErRETARY. PESHAWAR and 4 others --S. 7 read with Rule 3 and Schedule 'A' of N.-W F.P. Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1983-Prayer for leave to appeal against dismissed Constitutional petition-Contention that petitioners were appointed as civil judge-cwm-judicial Magistrates, persuant to selection made by a committee comprising, amongst others, four learned Judges of High Court after holding written test and interview, on contract basis for a period of one year which period was later extended for one year more by Government-Learned Chief Justice recommended to Government to regularise appointments as petitioners had two years judicial experience to their credit but this recommendation was not accepted by Government-Petitioners challenge refusal of Government to appoint them on regular basis by filing Constitutional petition before High Court seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to appoint them as Civil Judge-cum-judicial Magistrates-Held : Learned Judges of the High Court, were, right in observing that issuance of direction prayed for would be violative of law namely, section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978 read with Rule 3 and Schedule 'A' of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1983 which prescribe that appointments to the post in the Province in BPS-16 to 20 are to be made on advice of Public Service Commission, based ontest and examination conducted by Commission for the purpose, and thatthe posts held by petitioners being in BPS-17 can only be filled up in themanner prescribed in law-Concept of independence of judiciary1 does notmake judiciary above the law--Rather, obedience to law and strictadherence thereto by judiciary will ensure its independence and enhanceits prestige-Moreover, only such recommendation will be meaningfuland effective which is made in accordancewithlawandnotwhichwillbeviolative of law or which will have effect of frustrating law-Appointmentsare to be made by authority with which such power vests in the mannerprovided by law and not otherwise-Observation made in the Judges case(PLJ 1996 SC 882) cannot be made a basis for violating law or for actingin violation of law. Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.