ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No.D-181 of 2020

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

          

 

 

 

1.    For orders on office objection at flag `A`

2.    For hearing of CMA No.923/2020

3.    For hearing of main case

 

 

 

 

 

25-01-2024

                    

                     Mr. Safdar Ali Jogi, Advocate for the Petitioner

                     Mr. Zufiqar Ali Naich, Assistant Advocate General

.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

 

 

O R D E R

 

Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro,J:-      Petitioner in response to an advertisement dated 19.08.2016, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector in Police Sukkur Range,  applied for the same post. He qualified written test but in interview was declared failed. He has filed this petition stating that the questions asked from him by the Interview Committee were adequately replied by him, yet he has been declared failed. His next ground is that some of the candidates, who were absent on the day of interview were declared qualified and appointed as ASI.

2.                  His arguments have been rebutted by Assistant Advocate General, who while referring to the comments and Annexures ‘F & G’ has stated that no candidate, who was absent in the interview, was declared qualified. He further submits that all the candidates who have qualified were present in the interview test. He further submits that this Court cannot substitute for the opinion of the Interview Committee, which proposition has already been settled by this Court in various case law as well as by Supreme Court  in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 157).

3.                  We have heard the parties and taken guidelines from the case law cited at bar. In previous pronouncements, we have already decided that High Court is not competent to substitute for opinion of the Interview Committee failing or passing a candidate.  It is for the Interview Committee to evaluate aptitude, intelligence, probity competence etc. of the candidate and form an opinion about him. If it is satisfied, to declare him as qualified. A candidate, who has not succeeded in qualifying the interview, in law cannot maintain a petition on the ground that he was discriminated or he had correctly replied all the questions but was declared failed. Because the court has no means to verify this fact and decide it in his favour. No malafide has been alleged by the petitioner against the Interview Committee nor it is within his domain either to make such allegation in absence of any material.

4.                  In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss it accordingly.

 

                    

                                                                                                           JUDGE

 

                                                                     JUDGE

 

Sulemen Khan/PA