Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J. The appellant herein, by filing a writ petition before the High Court, challenged the advertisement dated 21.05.2018 to the extent of post of Assistant Engineer, BPS-17.
His writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide impugned order dated 19.06.2023, which reads as follows: "The learned counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that he does not want to press instant writ petition, therefore, the same may be dismissed as withdrawn.
In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, instant writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn and consigned to record."
2. Contention of the appellant before this Court is that he never instructed his counsel to withdraw the writ petition, hence, the writ petition could have not been dismissed because the statement furnished was un-authorised. He contended that the contents of vakalatnama did not give the learned counsel the power to make the writ/appeal ineffective. Furthermore, the proposition in hand has already been resolved by this Court in an authoritative judgment reported as Khan Muhammad and another vs. Abdul Aziz and others [1992 SCR 54], hence, this appeal is liable to be accepted.
3. The University's counsel, on the other hand, relied upon the case reported as Mst. Bashiran Bibi and others vs. Jewni and others [1997 SCMR 1079] and argued that when the counsel for the parties make a statement, the Court, as a matter of practice accepts their statement without doubt as to the correctness or authenticity of the same, hence, the learned High Court has rightly passed the impugned order on the basis of Statement of the learned counsel engaged by the appellant before the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Mr. Nasir Masood Mughal, Advocate, who was engaged by the appellant before the High Court as counsel, is present before the Court in relation to other cases. During course of arguments, on Court's query, he came on rostrum and affirmed that the alleged statement was made by him before the High Court, however, he added that the statement was made on the assurance of the learned counsel representing the University that the appellant shall be considered as candidate.
On this, Raja Gul Majeed Khan, Advocate, admitted the situation explained by Mr. Nasir Masood Mughal, Advocate. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the High Court is silent in this regard, however, if this appeal is disposed of in this manner, he has no objection.
6. In view of the above, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal in the terms that the respondents shall consider the appellant as candidate, if so qualified, for the post of Assistant Engineer, BPS-17.
7. Before parting with, we have no cavil with the principle of law laid down by this Court in the case reported as Khan Muhammad and another vs. Abdul Aziz and others [1992 SCR 54], however, at the same time the statement made by a counsel is always given due credence by the Courts. If a counsel makes a statement, the Courts as a matter of practice accept his statement without doubt as to the correctness or authenticity of the same. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied upon the case reported as Mst. Bashiran Bibi and others vs. Jewni and others [1997 SCMR 1079], wherein it was held that: "5....... The contention that the compromise should have been recorded in writing and the contents thereof should have been verified by the learned Judges of the Division Bench from the parties is also devoid of any force. Before the High Court if the learned' counsel for the parties make a statement, the Court, as a matter of practice, accepts their statement without doubt as to the correctness or authenticity of the same."
Even otherwise, an Advocate has implied authority of his client to settle the issue before the Court.
If such like practice is allowed, it will amount to open a new pandora box against the administration of justice.