GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Collectorate of Customs and another
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, which allowed the respondent's appeal regarding promotion to the post of Inspector in the Customs Department. The core legal question was whether the respondent, who secured 42 marks instead of the required 50% in one paper, was entitled to grace marks based on the principle of consistency, given that grace marks were allowed to other candidates in the 1990 examination. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's impugned order suffered from no legal infirmity and that no question of law of public importance was involved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, upholding the principle of consistency in departmental examinations.
- Whether an employee failing to secure the minimum pass marks in a departmental examination is entitled to grace marks on the principle of consistency?
- Does the grant of grace marks by a service tribunal raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 27- 3-1997, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Appeal No,362 (L) of 1996.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner joined the Customs Department as Upper Division Clerk on 24- 10-1984 in Grade-8. The relevant rule contained in SRO 57(1)/77, dated 5-1-1977 contemplates that for promotion to the post of Inspector the minimum pass marks are 50% in each paper. The respondent admittedly secured 50% marks in three papers but got 42 marks in the fourth paper.
The Tribunal took the view that the department allowed grace marks to two candidates in the examination held in 1990 and, therefore, following the principle of consistency the respondent was also entitled to the same treatment.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent/caveator we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity to warrant interference.
Even otherwise, no question of law of public importance is involved herein for interference in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
4. Resultantly the petition is dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 4 cases
- Nisar Ahmed Afzal vs Muhammad Sarwar and others 2018 [M] C.L.R. 1573, 2020 [M] C L R 106, 2018 IHC 98
- NISAR AHMED AFZAL Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR 2018 CLCN 114
- QURBAN ALI vs THE REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE 2015 LHC 4317
- QURBAN ALI vs REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE S.A. 2016 PLC (C.S.) 16