ARSHAD ALI TABASSUM versus THE REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Article 184 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), under section 10 constitutional petition under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution Post of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Interview Committee of the Supreme Court, by the Supreme Court Intervention Opinion Applicant appeared in written test for the post of Additional District and Session Judge, and the applicant was called for an interview to get the third highest number in the province, but received only 40 of the total 100 numbers. , Which was less than the required 50% score, allegedly misconduct by the eligible interview committee to qualify for the appointment. It was claimed that his appointment was not recommended because his services as a civil judge were terminated on charges of mismanagement, which was used by the Interview Committee to dismiss him. The selection process did not have any measure of validity with the Apparatus Supreme Court to determine that the applicant was delayed d / only because of his mismanagement as a civil judge failed to be interviewed. The interview committee must have given the applicant (40) after deciding his eligibility without being affected by his previous mismanagement, as the interview committee was not conducting. As a Disciplinary Committee on Applicant Disposition, since the applicant could not meet the criteria required for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, he was not recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee. The Interview Committee did not commit any illegal interference by which the intervention of the Supreme Court in its constitutional jurisdiction
