MUHAMMAD ADIL LATIF and another vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION
This matter concerns civil petitions challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals regarding the departmental promotion examination for Sub-Engineers. The petitioners contended that the Irrigation and Power Department acted arbitrarily by altering the examination format—introducing a 40% multiple-choice question component and a 60% subjective component—after the examination had already been conducted but before results were declared. The core legal question was whether the department possessed the authority to modify the examination criteria and mode of assessment after the examination process had commenced. The Supreme Court held that the department acted within its competence. The Court reasoned that the new criteria did not violate the PWD Code, nor did it alter the prescribed syllabus. The key principle laid down is that a competent authority retains the discretion to modify the criteria or mode of an examination, provided such changes remain within the outlines of the prescribed syllabus and do not contravene statutory regulations like the PWD Code.
- Can a government department modify the mode of examination after the examination has been conducted?
- Does the change in the format of an examination paper constitute a violation of the PWD Code if the syllabus remains unchanged?
- Is the competent authority empowered to alter examination criteria within the outlines of a prescribed syllabus?
- PWD Code
ORDER
'TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---This order shall dispose the titled civil petitions as both have arisen from a common judgment dated 21-7-2010 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the petitioners.
2. The grievance being voiced before the learned Tribunal was that the departmental promotion examination held by the Irrigation and Power Department for Sub-Engineers was conducted on 11- 10-2010 and 12-10-2010 but without declaring result, they entirely changed the criteria and prescribed mode of question paper i,e, 40% of the paper was to be based on M.C.Qs. And the rest of the 60% was based on subjective paper.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that having held the examination under certain criteria, the respondent-department could not have changed the mode of papers and that the promotion chances of the petitioners by the new mode have been adversely affected.
4. Having heard the learned counsel at some length, we find that it is not denied by the learned counsel, on court query, that the new criteria laid down by the department is not violative of the PWD Code. Even otherwise, the impugned notification does not affect the prescribed syllabus of the examination. There is nothing in the Code which prevents A the competent authority to change the criteria of the examination within the outlines of the prescribed syllabus at any time. Since there is no allegation that the substituted criterion is against the prescribed syllabus, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. Therefore, the petition, lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and .