' CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J.---The instant petition for leave to appeal is filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 7-4-2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission conducted examination for recruitment of Civil Judges. Petitioner herein competed for appointment as Civil Judge. However, he couldn't qualify the written test. The petitioner moved an application for rechecking of the papers. The Public Service Commission managed rechecking in presence of the petitioner. It transpired that only 22 marks have been obtained by the petitioner in the paper of Civil Law, whereas for question No,6 he obtained zero marks. The petitioner filed another application for remarking of the papers; however, the Public Service Commission declined the rechecking and remarking. It is alleged that refusal on the part of Public Service Commission is mala fide. Violate of its instructions as well as discriminatory because similar instructions are prevalent in different autonomous bodies i,e, Universities, the Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education.
3. The Public Service Commission filed written statement, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner due to failure couldn't qualify paper 1 (civil law). It is further contended that under the policy, a paper can only be rechecked on the request of a candidate; however, remarking is not permissible.
The remarking is only allowed, where some question is left unmarked by the examiner. It is alleged that the Committee constituted by the Public Service Commission has checked the papers in presence of the petitioner and found no fault in marking, hence the allegations, leveled by the petitioner are misconceived. After completion B of the required proceeding, the writ petition has been dismissed through the impugned judgment.
4. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, the learned counsel, for the petitioner, after stating brief facts of the case addressed his arguments mainly on the point that the Public Service Commission is bound to follow the procedure for marking the papers as is prescribed for Universities and Boards. He further contended that despite the fact that the learned High Court called for record of Public Service Commission and also examined the paper but failed to properly attend the controversy raised in the lis, thus the judgment is not sustainable. He further argued that it is a right of a candidate to get his papers checked and rechecked if he doesn't satisfy. According to prescribed standard for checking of papers, examiner and head examiner are necessary, whereas the Public Service Commission has not appointed any head examiner, thus it is a violation of law.
He also pressed the factual point that in the disputed answer sheet, seven marks awarded has been converted by zero by overwriting, which is apparent on the face of paper, but the High Court has not attended this point.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have also gone through the record made available as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Public Service Commission is bound to follow the standard prescribed of marking the papers for Universities and Boards, but he has failed to refer any statutory provision in this regard. The C learned Division Bench of the High Court has recorded an authoritative judgment after appreciation of every aspect of the case and also taken into consideration the legal precedents. According to, petitioner's own version, he has filed an application for rechecking of the papers and after due process the papers were rechecked, however, feeling dissatisfied, he filed, second application which couldn't find favour and the Public Service Commission vide letter dated 21-7-2010 informed the petitioner as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The factual version of the Public Service Commission as stated in the above referred letter has not been denied by the petitioner, however, it appears that the petitioner doesn't feel satisfaction and wishes for remarking of the papers. The learned High Court, on the main controversy, observed the following:-- "We have given due consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and come to the conclusion that no illegality has been committed by the examiner while awarding zero marks for answer to question No,6. Even, the attention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner was drawn by the Court during the course of arguments that how much marks could be granted to the petitioner for the answer to question No,6 but the learned Advocate was unable to differ from the awarded marks."
' Whereas the petitioner has challenged the propriety of this observation in ground "F" of his petition for leave to appeal in the following manner:-- "That the learned High Court wrongly held that at the time/course of arguments the paper of the petitioner was shown to the counsel of the petitioner, and the counsel of the petitioner was unable to differ from the awarded marks, clue to the reason, the awarding of the marks to the paper is a technical job of the examiner, head examiner. It is not a job of counsel of the parties, because no can be judge of his own cause, the arguments of the counsel were very much clear on this point."
The above reproduced ground of attack clearly connotes that the High Court's observation is factually correct and the petitioner has no answer except to forward a lame excuse that it is technical job of the examiner or head examiner and not a job of counsel of the parties. I am unable to agree with the views of the petitioner and his counsel, because a lawyer in relation to law paper is the most concerned person. The main argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the Public Service Commission is bound to follow the standard of checking of papers prescribed of Universities and Boards, as hereinabove observed, he has failed to substantiate his argument by reference of any statutory provision. According to my estimation, Boards and universities have their own rules and regulations, whereas the Public Service Commission is altogether an independent autonomous body having its own rules, regulations and criteria. Unless it is specifically provided by any statute that parameter provision of any other statute will be attracted or applicable, no institution or legal person can be forced by implication to follow the mode or procedure of any other institution. It is also the opinion of the superior Courts that the Courts or any other person cannot substitute the wisdom of the examiner. In a recent case reported as 2011 SCM R 848, Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing more or less identical propositions in case a candidate, who appeared in competitive examination for provincial management service but couldn't qualify and subsequently filed a writ petition that he deserves for grace marks as is admissible under the provisions of Rule 6 of N.-W.F.P. Judicial Service Examination Rules. The writ petition was accepted by the High Court, however, the apex Court of Pakistan set aside the judgment of the High Court and observed as following:-- "5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment impugned with care and caution. The advertisement dated 16-2-2008 qua the posts of Provincial Management Service (PMS) (BPS-17) and syllabus prescribed for the said examination have been examined carefully with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of respondents. A careful and an in-depth scrutiny of the advertisement and syllabus would reveal that no such provision for grant of grace marks was available. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of respondents was asked pointedly that which provision of the syllabus prescribed for the said examination was violated but no satisfactory answer could be given. It has been mentioned in a categorical manner in the prescribed syllabus for Competitive Examination of Provincial Management Service PMS, that no candidate shall be summoned for viva voce test unless he has obtained at least 30% marks in each Option paper, 40% marks in each compulsory paper and 50% marks in aggregate of the written portion of the examination. The syllabus doesn't provide the provision of granting grace marks to the candidate which was made clear in general condition in the advertisement. The question that in the absence of any provision qua granting grace marks how it could have been demanded or claimed could not be answered. The contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court as mentioned hereinabove seems to be in oblivion of the fact that criterion, qualification and terms/conditions for holding Competitive Examination for different categories cannot be one and the same having its own peculiar characteristics."
Thus, without any specific express provision, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the standard prescribed for marking papers of Universities and Boards is applicable to Public Service Commission is without any substance.
6. The apex Court of Pakistan, on question of maintainability of writ petition further observed as following:--
(9) The learned High Court has totally ignored the syllabus prescribed for examination and advertisement made in this regard. We may mention here that no vested legal right whatsoever was available to the respondents for the invocation of the provisions as envisaged in Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is well settled by now that "the right which is the foundation of an application under Article 199 is a personal and individual right. The legal right may be a statutory right or a right recognized by the law. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to perform relating to the right. There must not only be a right but a justiciable right in existence, to give jurisdiction to the High Court in the matter. Unless whatevef right, personal or otherwise, on which the application is based is established, no order can issue under Art.199."
In the instant case the, petitioner has failed to point out any violation of F statutory provisions or any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. Thus finding no force, this petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.