Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, ACJ.--We intend to decide the following intra Court appeals by one consolidated judgment having similar facts and law:--
1. ICA No, 113 of 1996
2. ICA No, 114 of 1996
3. ICA No, 115 of 1996
2. The brief facts out of which the aforesaid intra Court appeals arise are that the department issued publication in daily 'Jang' on 11.7.1994 for direct recruitment of Inspectors in the department. According to the advertisement the candidates had to submit their applications to the concerned quarters till 26.7.1994. The written test for the candidates comprised two papers one of mathematics and other of general knowledge. Each paper carried 100 marks whereas 100 marks were reserved for viva voce.
The department received 689 applications and subsequently respondents also received applications from the candidates. In all 377 candidates took written examination out of which 23 candidates qualified the same. On the basis of the merit list prepared after test/interview, 12 candidates were selected out of the 23 candidates. Out of 12 selected candidates 6 were appointed whereas in case of remaining 6 candidates relaxation of Rules was recommended which was allowed by the competent authority. Being aggrieved Shakil Anwar filed W.P. No, 6420/95, Fiaz Ahmad Shad filed W.P. No, 6991/95 and Amjad Latif filed W.P. No, 8422/95. All the aforesaid writ petitions were consolidated and were accepted by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 19.3.1996 wherein written test by the department was declared valid but the interview conducted by the department was declared as being not transparent. The appellants being aggrieved filed the above mentioned ICAs which were dismissed and judgment of the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 1.6.2000 was upheld. The appellants as well as the department being aggrieved filed following CPLAs before the Honourable Supreme Court:--
1. CPLA No, 1693-L/2000
2. CPLA No, 1694-L/2000
3. CPLA No: 1695-L/2000
4. CPLA No, 1975-L/2000
5. CPLA No, 1976-L/2000
6. CPLA No, 1899-L/2000 The above petitions were converted into appeals and the case was remanded to the Division Bench vide order dated 25.10.2000.
3. Learned counsel of the appellants and of the Income Tax Department submit that interview was held by the department in a transparent manner and he relied upon the minutes of the meeting of the departmental selection committee held on 7.5.1995.
He further submits that 100 marks were reserved for interview and candidates have to secure 50% marks in each paper consisting of two written papers having 100 marks each and 100 marks of interview in view of SRO No, 656 (i)/82 dated 5.7.1982 read with Schedule-II, Rule 4A(b) the qualifying marks for each paper including viva voce will be 50%. The respondents have no alleged any mala fide against the three member committee, therefore, learned single Judge erred in law to accept the constitutional petitions of the private respondents. They further submit that matter has been finally decided by the Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated 25.10.2000 and the case has been remanded to this Court to decide afresh within certain parameters to examine the interview held by the department.
4. Learned counsel of the respondents submit that department has received the applications from the candidates after the cut off date and the department has issued appointment letters to the candidates whose applications had been received by the department after the cut off date. Therefore, interview was not held by the department in transparent manner. They further submit that Amjad Latif secured 166 marks out of 200 in written test and secured third position in merit list in the written test held by the department. However, the department had given 49 marks to Amjad Latif in interview. In case the marks of written test and interview are put in juxta position then it is crystal clear that the deportment has not held the interview in transparent manner and in fact it has been held arbitrarily simply to accommodate their own favourite persons. They further urge that candidates who secured less marks in written test have been awarded much more marks in the interview coupled with the fact that no sub division was made regarding academic qualification. They further submit that in the advertisement the department has not mentioned that the candidates have to pass the interview held by the department which is in consonance of the policy of the department which is published in Estacode at page 139 under the heading "recruitments policy for the federal services/autonomous bodies/corporations" wherein under para-3 clause (d) specifically mentioned that no weightage should be given to the interview and resorted to only if considered necessary to adjudge the suitability for a particular job. They further submit that respondents have brought on record documents through C.M. No, 2/96 which are marked as Annexure-R/1, R/2, R/3 and R/4. Therefore, policy of 1992 is applicable in case of examination in question and the policy relied by the counsel of the appellant of 1982 is not relevant. They further submit that one of the appellants Ajiz Hussain Shahid has also secured recommendations from MNA at the relevant time. This fact alone is sufficient that the department has not held the interview in accordance with the policy and in transparent manner. They further submit that it is the duty of the appellants to prove the contents of the document in question as the onus is on them. They further submit that the department has issued appointment letters even to the candidates without any relaxation with regard to their over age.
5. Learned counsel of the appellants and of Income Tax Department in rebuttal submit that the respondent did not rely upon recruitment policy, 1992 in the contents of the writ petition and in the earlier round of litigation and they are bound by their pleadings. The department has held the examination in question under Policy of 1982. This Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the controversy between the parties in terms of the parameters prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court in order dated 25.10.2000.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "5. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, learned ASC for the private petitioners as well as Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, learned senior ASC appearing on behalf of the Commissioner Income Tax, contended that the High Court had fallen into an error in holding that the viva voce was subjective in nature. It was contended that the Selection Committee laid down objective criteria for holding viva voce in that 15 marks were assigned to Academic Record, 20 marks to Question on Written, 15 marks to General Knowledge, 15 marks to Knowledge of Islam, 5 marks to Experience, 10 marks to Confidence bringing the total to 100 marks. It is contended that on the basis of the above criteria all the candidates were judged and assigned various marks against various sections details whereof are given in the Result Sheet available as Annex-A at page-68 of the Paper Book of Civil Petition No, 1693-L/2000. When faced with this, Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, learned AOR for the private respondents contended that the petitioners failed to produce the above document before the learned Judge in Chambers/Intra Court Appeal-Bench and, therefore, they are precluded to rely upon the same in these proceedings. However, after some arguments, the learned counsel for the parties agreed to remanding the case to the High Court for consideration of the above plea afresh.
6. We therefore, convert these petitions into appeals and by allowing the same remand the matter to the learned Judge in Chambers for consideration of the above plea after examining the departmental record afresh and the impact of the same upon the lis. Meanwhile, the selectees/appointees shall hold the posts against which they, are working presently. There shall be no order as to costs."'
Mere reading of the aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveals that the Honourable Supreme Court has narrowed down the controversy between the parties and directed this Court to decide the case after perusing the original record of the department qua the interview held by the respondents of the successful candidates of written examination. The department has produced the original record. The relevant result sheet is reproduced. hereunder:-- Sr, No,Roll No,Name of candidateAcademic Record (15 marks)Question written papers (20 marks)General Knowledge (15 marks)Knowledge of Islam (15 marks)Experience (5 marks)General Intelligence (10 marks)Speaking power (10 marks)Confidence (10 marks)Total marks (100 marks)
1. 691 Mr. Tariq Masood11 15 10 10 - 6 6 6 64
2. 658 Mr. Muzammal Hussain5 7 8 12 3 3 3 3 44
3. 29 Mr. Amjad Latif11 10 10 3 - 5 5 5 49
4. 690 Mr. MuhammadAbsent Shafique
5. 692 Syed Aamar Ali13 18 12 13 13 9 9 9 88
6. 622 Mr . Maqbool Ahmad10 8 8 - - 4 4 4 46
7. 307 Mr. Ghulam Hussain13 16 12 10 10 7 8 8 76
8. 614 Mr . Zahid Hameed13 16 12 12 12 6 7 8 74
9. 242 Mr. Khizar Hayat Qamar15 15 13 13 13 6 6 8 76
10. 480 Mr. Sarfraz AR Khadia11 10 8 8 8 4 4 4 49
11. 57 Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad Shad11 7 3 7 7 3 3 3 40
12. 72 Mr. Muhammad Tanveer13 19 14 14 14 9 9 9 87
13. 556 Mr. Muhammad Ayub11 10 10 4 4 2 2 4 46
14. 652 Mr . Khalid Mehmood11 6 6 7 7 5 5 6 49
15. 591 Mr. Tariq Sarwar13 14 13 14 14 8 8 8 78
16. 687 Mr. Naveed Ahmad Arshad11 10 9 9 9 4 3 3 49 17.188 Mr. Shakeel Anwar11 10 6 8 - 4 4 4 47 18.366 Mr. Khurram Shahzad13 8 7 6 - 5 5 5 49 19.693 Mr. Muhammad Waqar Ali Khan11 13 11 10 2 7 7 7 68 20.695 Mr. Sajjad Hussain11 13 12 10 - 8 7 8 69 21.696 Rai Shahzad Ah mad11 15 13 14 - 9 9 9 80 22.698 Mr. Ahrnad Shafique Ellahi8 10 11 10 - 6 6 6 67 23.657 Mr. Ajar.
Hussain Shahid9 15 13 12 4 8 8 8 77 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Muhammad Shafi Malik) (Qurban Ali) (Javed Athar)
Commissioner of Income Tax Inspecting Additional Commissioner Inspecting Additional Commissioner and Wealth Tax Faisalabad of Income Tax and Wealth Tax of Income Tax and Wealth Tax (Chairman) Coy-Range-I Faisalabad Range-V Faisalabad (Member) (Member)
In case the aforesaid result sheet and Para-5 and 6 of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court are put in juxta position then we do not interfere in the matter as the matter has been concluded between the parties to this extent by the order of the Honourable Supreme Court which if final between the parties in view of Section 11 of CPC as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh vs. Chairman Allotment Committee (PLD 1987 S.C. 145). As the result sheet is a public document which is valid in view of Article 150 of the Constitution. Therefore, full credit is to be given to the said original record.
Even otherwise the said document is valid in terms of the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the following judgment:-- Mst. Nur Khatoon vs. Nur Khan (PLD 1956 Lahore 293).
In view of what has been discussed above, we accept the appeals in view of order of the Honourable Supreme Court.
Consequently, judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Even the obiter dicta of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding upon this Court. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the following judgments:-- Ghaus Muhammad Versus The State (PLD 1978 Lahore 1235). Martial Law Administrator Versus Muhammad Niaz (PLD 1979 SC 921).
It is pertinent to mention here that learned counsel of the respondents have alleged that the department has issued the appointment letters to the candidates who are over age, therefore, keeping in view this allegation we direct the Chairman C.B.R. to constitute a high powered committee to probe into the matter to this extent and the committee shall complete the process within three months and thereafter competent authority shall proceed in the matter in terms of the finding of the committee. In case the committee finds any person who is acting in derogation of the law then he is directed to proceed against said person under Efficiency and Discipline Rules. He is also directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court within the stipulated period.