Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J. Saima Mir Zaman, the appellant, filed a writ petition before the learned High Court, stating therein that the Public Service Commission (PSC) advertised 40 posts for Secondary School Teacher (General Line), BPS-16, in District Muzaffarabad. It was alleged that she applied for one of the posts, participated in the test and interview, and ultimately ranked 15th in the waiting merit list. She claimed that she holds two master's degrees i.e., M.A. in Political Science and M.A. in Library and Information Sciences and included copies of both degrees with her application. She secured 46.5% in Political Science and 57.3% in Library and Information Sciences.
She contended that her degree with the higher marks i.e., M.A. in Library and Information Sciences, should be considered for merit determination. Despite her repeated requests, she claimed that the respondents, with mala fide intent, disregarded this degree while assessing her merit position. After hearing preliminary arguments, the High Court dismissed her writ petition in limine through the impugned judgment.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is contrary to law and the facts. He added that the appellant in her writ petition before the High Court sought a direction to PSC to consider her degree of M.A. in Library and Information Sciences and thereafter compile the merit list accordingly by including the marks from that degree. He emphasized that the appellant never sought appointment to any withheld posts.
However, the High Court, in its impugned judgment, erroneously analyzed the appellant's case. He further argued that the judgment cited and relied upon by the High Court while delivering the impugned decision is irrelevant to the present case, hence, the impugned judgment is result of misinterpretation of law.
3. The learned counsel for the PSC argued that, according to record, the appellant applied under Advertisement No. 4/2018, with the deadline for document submission being 15.03.2018. The appellant's degree of M.A. in Political Science was issued on 12.03.2012, which predates the application deadline. However, her degree of M.A. in Library and Information Sciences was issued on 26.11.2018, over six months after the deadline. Consequently, the PSC did not consider the Library and Information Sciences degree while awarding the marks. The counsel further .contended that the selection process was conducted in strict compliance of applicable laws and regulations, asserting that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The core issue for determination is whether in this case, the appellant's degree of M.A. in Library and Information Sciences, should be considered in assessing her merit position. The use built up by the appellant during the arguments is that the appellant applied in pursuance of advertisement No. 4/2018. At that time, she was holding the qualification of M.A. in Political Sciences with 46.5% marks. Subsequently, she also obtained the degree of M.A. in Library Sciences while securing 57.3% marks. Subsequently, the posts were re-advertised vide advertisement No. 1/2019. It is claimed by the appellant that the appellant once again filed an application for appointment and annexed therewith the degree of M.A. In Library Sciences but the respondents with mala fide intention did not consider this degree in which she got higher marks. According to PSC, the appellant applied under Advertisement No. 4/2018, with the stipulated deadline for document submission being 15.03.2018. While her M.A. degree in Political Science was awarded before this deadline on 12.12.2012, the degree in Library and Information Sciences was not issued until 26.11.2018 over six months after the deadline had passed.
Therefore, the PSC excluded this degree from the merit determination, adhering to the cut-off dates. The appellant failed to bring on record anything contrary to rebut the claim of PSC. She did not append the copy of application filed before the PSC to enable the Court to assess her claim.
Thus, it can safely be presumed that the appellant never filed any subsequent application in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/2019.
6 & 7. In legal proceedings, the failure of a party to produce a document in support of its claim can significantly impact the party's case. Courts expect the parties to present all relevant documents to substantiate their claims or defenses. When a party fails to do so, it may give rise to adverse inferences and can even lead to the dismissal of the case if the evidence is deemed insufficient.
Courts may draw an adverse inference against a party who fails to produce relevant documents without a valid reason. According to the doctrine of adverse inference as stipulated under Article 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, if a party in possession of relevant evidence does not produce it, the ''' Court may assume that the evidence, if presented, would have been unfavorable to that party. Furthermore, in civil cases, the burden of proof generally rests on the party making a claim. If that party does not produce evidence in support of their claim, they fail to meet their burden of proof, which can result in the dismissal of their claim. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Mst. Zarsheda vs. Nobat Khan [PLD 2022 SC 21], wherein, it was held that: "8.......The gist of evidence shows that defendant failed to establish the facture of gift. The attorney of the defendant appeared as DW-1, who deposed that the property was gifted by Muhammad Ali to the defendant, however, during his cross-examination, he deposed that Muhammad Ali was present in his village but he cannot produce any witness of the gift. Neither the alleged donor was produced or called in the-Court for evidence nor was the witnesses of the alleged mutation of gift were called for evidence. Waseem Bari,- Stamp vendor, PW-3 appeared and verified that stamp paper in question was sold by him to Muhammad Ali for agreement to sell in favour of Mst.
Zarsheda, daughter of Hayat Khan.
9. At this juncture Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is quite relevant under which court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, 'regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. According to the illustrations highlighted for resonating the presumption, Illustration (g) is quite relevant which illuminates, "that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be un-favourable to the person who withholds it". Adverse inference for nonproduction of evidence is one of the strongest presumptions known to law and the law allows it against the party who withholds the evidence.
Regardless of the presence of important witnesses (the alleged donor) and the alleged witness of the mutation, the defendant failed to produce them despite framing of specific issue whether there was no transaction of sale but a gift."
8. In view of these facts, the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's writ petition appears well- founded. The PSC acted within its authority and in accordance with the relevant rules by disregarding the degree issued after the deadline. The appellant's inability to furnish supporting documents further weakens her position, and there exists no basis to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.