HABIB Versus SARDAR ALI
This matter concerns a challenge to the recruitment process for the post of Senior Translation Officer. The petitioner, who held an M.A. degree in English and Urdu, protested against the selection test, which consisted solely of translation passages between Urdu and Arabic, arguing that it unfairly excluded candidates lacking an M.A. in Arabic despite the advertisement allowing applicants with M.A. degrees in English, Arabic, or Urdu. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed the petitioner's claim on the grounds that, by refusing to take the test, the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the selection. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the test was neither legal nor fair. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner's grievance was understandable, the determination of the nature and content of test questions falls within the discretion of the relevant authorities. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the authorities' action and declined to interfere with the recruitment process under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
- Does a candidate who refuses to participate in a selection test have locus standi to challenge the recruitment process?
- Is the determination of the nature and content of a selection test a matter within the discretion of the recruiting authorities?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the content of a recruitment test under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑ ‑The question in this case is whether the recruitment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Senior Translation Officer was against the law?
2. It appears that a test was conducted by the Selection Committee to determine the best candidate. In this test the question paper which was given to the candidates contained only two passages, an Urdu passage which the candidates were required to translate into Arabic and a passage in Arabic which they were asked to translate into Urdu.
3. The petitioner protested against the questions paper and did not attempt it. According to him whereas as per qualifications contained in the advertisement candidates possessing M.A. Degree in English, Arabic and Urdu were. eligible for, the post, the test which was held in pursuance; thereof could be attempted only by persons holding the degree of M.A. (Arabic) and the candidates holding degrees of MA. in English and MA. in Urdu thereby stood excluded.
4. The Service Tribunal hits, inter alia, found that the petitioner not having taken the test had gone out of the contest anti, therefore, did not have any locus standi to agitate against his non‑selection.
5. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the test conducted was neither legal, fair nor proper as candidates who were otherwise eligible for selection were disabled from the contest by the nature of the test that was conducted. There is some force in this submission, but the questions to be put in the test and their nature are matters purely for the authorities concerned. We appreciate the feelings of the petitioner but it cannot be held that the action of the authorities in including only questions which the candidates proficient in Arabic could properly attempt, was illegal.
6. It is, therefore, not possible to interfere in these circumstances, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution.
7. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. M.A.K./A‑363/S Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MEER MUHAMMAD vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 672