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