ZAFAR JAVAID versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), OKARA
Article 199 Constitution Petition for the appointment of Civil Service Appointment, Advertising and Recruitment Policy, 2004, for consideration and appointment by the Selection Committee, on the marks of their examination for appointment by the applicant against the post of Patwari. Interview was allowed by the applicant filed for consideration The appeal of the court was the appellant's argument that the selection committee considered only the qualification and marks obtained in the interview, but not the result of the examination. The criteria laid down in the recruitment policy, 2004, were adopted by the admissions committee instead of the advertisement criteria, the sole judge of the high court put aside the recruitment policy, 2004, from which the criteria for the evaluation of the candidates were established. Such a choice could not be assumed to be the constitutional jurisdiction of the ad hoc committee to become a benchmark, nor could it serve the duties of an electoral authority. The interview was a subjective test and it was not possible. For a court interview board to substitute its opinion, it was within the jurisdiction of the members of the board that something that caused them to agree to give a certain number to a particular candidate and the court was not satisfied with the law. He was not expected to replace them. With its own search recruitment policy, it was announced there in 2004, before the Patwari post, that the first, the recruitment policy, would eliminate the quality advertisement formulated in 2004, It was in the jurisdiction that finally the intra-court appeals be given marks according to the criteria given and the High Court
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
