Section 7 (3) (d) Competitive Examination (CSS) Rules, 2009, R7 (iii) The re-examination of the Respondent's books was the Appellant's Bar Scope that it performed better than these marks. That were given to them. Along with representation, the review, which was rejected by the Public Service Commission on the basis that the rolls did not provide for re-review of the answer sheets, was a definite process of competency competency and the Public Service Commission had to submit its recommendations to a specific Was required to present within. If the time allowed for candidates from various inspectors to examine the answer books, it would be an exhausting exercise and would make it impossible for the Public Service Commission to prepare a final list to make its recommendations. And the complaints were approved by the Public Service Commission. The checking of the answer books was prohibited in any case under the Competitive Examination Rules 2009. The marking of tennis papers was not a valid science and was done by a different inspector. A higher or lower number than the actual examiner in the paper sent to Can be found. Most papers were marked by an inspector or a set of examiners and this would be neither fair nor merely a different examiner's or examiner's set for examining one or more papers. Send This type of exercise opens the Pandora box and will be unfair to other candidates whose papers were marked and qualified for the same examiners or set of examiners. In the next step, the way
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
