IFTIKHAR ALAM and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others

1. Resume of the necessary facts for resolving the present controversy as divulged from the record are that consequent upon petitioners' success in the departmental examination having been conducted under The Punjab (Buildings and Highways) Sub-Engineer Professional Examination Rules, 1977 in October, 1988 and certification of the prerequisite viz. Credited with at least 10 years' service in the department as Sub-Engineers in the lower grade and possessing the prescribed qualification for initial recruitment to the post of Sub-Engineer, were placed in B.P.S. 16 by the competent authority vide letter No,200-E of 8-11-1988 w,e,f. 7-11-19881 subsequent whereto, on the initiative of an unsuccessful candidate i,e. Respondent No,4, Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Government of the Punjab on 9-2-1989 cancelled/scrapped petitioners' departmental professional examination in obedience whereto the Superintending Engineer, Highways Circle, Faisalabad vide Memo No,169/542- 44 dated 14-24989 recalled the office order No,200/E, dated 8- 11-1989, feeling aggrieved thereby, present petition was resorted to inter alia contending that it is a case of coram non judice since, under the Rules referred to supra, not only finality is attached to the decision of examination committee since it is not amenable to appeal, revision or review, but also order of the competent authority placing the petitioners in BPS 16 having been implemented was immune from review under the principle of locus poenitentia the competent authority purely acted mechanically in obedience to the dictates of the Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Government of the Punjab without application of independent mind and contrary to the inalienable principle of Audi alter partem while learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the petition without controverting the above contentions by submitting that it is not maintainable in terms of the bar envisaged in Article 212 of the 1973 Constitution and secondly success in the departmental examination was manoeuvred by the petitioners resorting to unfair means with which I am not persuaded for the simple reason that the latter contention requires detailed factual inquiry which can't be ventured upon in these proceedings while the former has been advanced in oblivion of the fact that the bar contemplated by Article 212 of the Constitution preconceives the notion that the impugned order ought to have been passed by the competent authority which sine qua non is lacking since the competent authority happens to be Superintending Engineer concerned and not the Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Government of the Punjab, thus is patently a case of coram non judice; as well as demonstrative of the species of subjugation to the dictates of the superiors and lack of application of independent mind, qua which, admittedly, the petitioners were not even required to show cause, consequently; granting the petition, the impugned orders are hereby set aside being, a nullity and still born baby in the eye of law; however, there shall be no order as to costs.