' MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.--- The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 ("the Constitution"), through which the following prayer has been solicited: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that 1 paper-I of the petitioner may kindly be re- evaluated/remarked/re-checked through third-party.
2. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 may kindly be declared disqualified as they are competing on lawyer's seat.
3. Respondent No 9 as a failed candidate may not be interviewed.
4. Respondent No.10 may kindly be terminated from his post of Additional District and Sessions Judge as incompetent.
5. The interview of impugned successful candidates on 15 May, 2015 may kindly stayed (sic.) till final decision of the instant petition in the interest of justice and fair play.
6. Any other relief which this honourable court thinks just and proper may kindly be granted."
2. Petitioner, Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Baloch, a practicing lawyer at Quetta, had appeared in the written test held by the Selection Committee of this Court, consisting of four Hon'ble Judges, headed by the Hon'ble Senior Puisne Judge on 29th and 30th April, 2015 and remained unsuccessful. It is case of the petitioner that though he attempted all the questions, yet the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee is not according to the expectation of the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the preparation of merit list is the result of favoritism, nepotism and he has been discriminated against only on the basis of caste and creed by the Selection Committee.
In such state of affairs, he has prayed for re-evaluation of his answer sheet through a third-party.
3. After listening to the petitioner, having gone through the available record, the relevant law and precedents referred to, we are constrained to observe that filing of the instant petition is nothing, but an effort to scandalise the Hon'ble Judges of this Court by the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has made a dishonest attempt to convert his failure in success under the colour of parochial, racial and tribal approach, which is against the spirit of the Constitution, in particular Article 33 of the Constitution, that too, on the part of an advocate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. The petitioner submitted that the respondents may be directed to produce entire record of the other candidates, who have been declared qualified so as to make comparison of the marks to the petitioner given by the Examiners vis-a-vis other candidates. As per the petitioner, the perusal of answer sheet of the petitioner if compared with the standard answers, it can easily be inferred that the Examiners have examined the answer sheet carelessly and awarded reasonably low marks knowingly or unknowingly. They have not checked the answer sheet properly, therefore, the respondents be directed to re-check the answer sheet of the petitioner. In our considered view, every unsuccessful candidate has the tendency to say that he had performed well but assessed poorly. It may be observed that the request in connection with the solved papers by way of re- checking, re-evaluation and re-marking cannot be exceeded to without reasonable grounds, because it would tantamount to opening a pandora box, thereby every student will refer to the steps not in consonance with the law. There is no provision in the law to allow inspection or evaluation of the answer sheet or a provision to show it to the person concerned. While holding this view, we are fortified by the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad, (1996 SCMR 676), which read as under:--- "We are unable to accept the above contention. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent if accepted will lead to dangerous consequences, as it will open the door for every unsuccessful candidate to challenge the result of his examination in Court thus involving the educational institutions into unending and unethical litigation and bringing the whole system of examination in vogue, at stake. The solemnity of educational institutions and process of examination cannot be signified on the altar of expediency. As earlier stated by us, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is meant for correcting the errors of jurisdictional nature. Therefore, in order to succeed, the respondent must first satisfy that the issue brought by her before the Court is justifiable under Article 199 of the Constitution. The learned Judge in Chambers, therefore, could not pass the impugned order without first determining these basic questions regarding jurisdiction of Court in the matter. We, accordingly, accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the writ petition filed by the respondent will be disposed of by the learned Judge in Chambers without asking for production of the whole lot of answer books examined by the examiners who examine the answer book of respondent. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case."
5. Once the petitioner has participated in examination and having failed in it, it does not lie within his right to challenge the proceedings on the ground of mala fides or violation of rules, which the petitioner failed to point out. The record reflects that the answer books were collected by the Committee and got evaluated in a very confidential and fair manner. For evaluation of answer books, senior experienced Hon'ble Judges with proven integrity were nominated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The Examiners, while checking the answer sheets, did not know the identity of the candidates, as the answer sheets were coded by the Chairperson of the Committee before giving those to the Examiner, in order to ensure the secrecy as per the prevalent practice. Thus, the process ensures fair evaluation of answer sheets, strictly based on performance of the candidate.
Since the exam is held in a very fair, transparent and confidential manner, as such, no question of discrimination arises in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
6. The record reveals that out of 95 candidates, only 7 candidates have obtained more than 50% marks and the remaining 88 candidates secured less than the qualifying marks. Therefore, it is clear that every candidate secured the marks as per his performance. The Examiners have evaluated the answer sheets with utmost care and best of their knowledge. The petitioner is acting as a super examiner and not only challenged the knowledge and wisdom of the Examiners, but also the Principal Examiner. He has also levelled baseless allegations of bias attitude on the part of the Examiners, that too, without any reason. The transparency and the mechanism evolved by the Members of the Committee is also evident from the fact that one Mr. Muhammad Yahya son of Dr. Muhammad Qasim is the real brother, whereas one Mr. Ahmed Ali son of Mir Muhammad Ibrahim is brother-in-law of the sitting Hon'ble Chief Justice, who could not succeed in the instant examination. Similarly, one Asadullah son of Saifullah, who happened to be brother-in-law of one of the sitting Hon'ble Judge, a member of Examination Committee of this Court, also remained unsuccessful.
7. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding respondents No,3 and 7 is concerned, admittedly, presently they are holding the position of Additional District and Sessions Judges. They were allowed to participate in the instant examination on the strength of their standing as practicing lawyers, prior to joining their recent position. This question came up for consideration before a division bench of this Court in the case of "Haroon-ur-Rashid v. Registrar Balochistan High Court, Quetta" (2013 PLC (C.S.) 81), wherein it was observed:--- "9. In respect of the applications submitted by the Assistant District Attorneys neither Rules 5 nor Rule 7 of the 2002 place any restrictions upon Assistant District Attorneys for applying to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges. The advertisement nor the subsequent Notification also did not disallow such persons from applying. Rule 7 of the 2002 Rules requires that an application should be a law graduate from a recognized University and should have at least five years practice as an Advocate. Accordingly, if an Assistant District Attorney is a law graduate and has practiced as an Advocate for a period of five years he/she would be entitled to apply for such post. To hold otherwise would be to contravene Article 18 and sub-Article (1) of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The same benefit would also be available to all other applicants who may not have been considered by the Registrar and who have not filed petitions, provided they meet the qualification and experience as stipulated in Rule 7 of the 2002 Rules. The Registrar is accordingly directed to reconsider all those applications that were rejected on the ground that the applicants were in any service and to include all such names in the list/s of eligible candidates, provided they meet the stipulated qualification and experience set out in the applicable rules."
8. The petitioner has raised a plea of mala fides against Members of the Selection Committee on the ground that he was discriminated on the basis of caste and creed. We are afraid that presently the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, one of the Member of the Selection Committee as well as Registrar of this Court also belong to the ethnicity of the petitioner, as such, the allegation of mala fides on the part of the Members of the Selection Committee and establishment of this Court seems to be baseless, misplaced and misconceived and it can easily be inferred from the nature of the said allegations that an attempt has been made by the petitioner just to scandalise and dispute the process of appointments due to his failure in the examination in question.
9. We have no reason to hold that there was any mala fide on the part of the Members of the Selection Committee either in conducting the written examination or in the assessment of the answer sheets by them. The petitioner has been found to have failed miserably in Paper-I, even upon re-evaluation of the marks sheet, the allegation made by the petitioner against Members of the Selection Committee are bereft of any substance and are devoid of merit. We have no hesitation in holding that the answer sheets of the petitioner had been evaluated fairly as per a genuine assessm ent by the Examiners,
10. Although the petitioner has failed to show any provision of law, entitling him to ask for re- checking or re-evaluation of the answer sheets, however, we are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer sheets can be ordered, subject to the condition that there should be strong grounds to believe that the answer scripts were not justly evaluated. It is true that bias, malice and mala fides are sufficient grounds to vitiate all proceedings, but it is equally true that the Courts, while interfering with F the discretion exercised by any authority, have to be cautious and have to ascertain from the facts and circumstances the exercise of real likelihood of bias. Where, in cases, it is difficult to prove bias, the Court determines its existence on probabilities to be inferred from the circumstances. While considering the case in hand on the touchstone of the aforementioned settled principle of law, there is absolutely no ground to believe that the answer scripts were not justly evaluated.
11. It may be observed that in spite of lacking reasonable grounds for re-checking, re-evaluating and re-marking, while keeping in view the centuries old principle that "let justice prevail though the heaven would fall", we ourselves re-examined the answer scripts of the petitioner and found that total has been rightly brought forward, no portion of any answer has been left unmarked, there is no mistake in the grand total on the cover of the answer book and the answer book has not been changed. The exam in question has been conducted by a duly constituted Committee, consisting of four Hon'ble Judges of this Court, headed by Hon'ble Senior Puisne Judge, after a cumbersome process within the shortest possible period and no one has raised finger towards the G transparency observed during the process, except the petitioner, that too, with mala fides, as observed hereinabove. The record reveals that out of 95 candidates, only 7 have been qualified for interviews and needless to observe that all the candidates, who have been qualified for interviews, belong to indigenous tribes of Balochistan and the candidates, securing second and fourth position, belong to the- ethnicity of the petitioner.
' For the discussion made hereinabove, since the possibility of success of the instant petition is not visible, thus, the same, being without any merit, is dismissed in limine.