' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 12-12-1998, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who is a refugee, applied in response to a proclamation for filling in the vacancies of Civil Engineers in the year 1995. Consequently, after taking necessary proceedings, the Public Service Commission made recommendations in favour of respondents Nos .6 to 16. The appellant, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the proceedings of the Public Service Commission on the grounds that the date fixed for the interviews of the candidates were changed with mala fide intention and that on the relevant date the Chairman of the Public Service Commission did not preside over the meeting. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition observing that it was not obligatory 'under the relevant rules that every meeting of the Public Service Commission should be presided over by the Chairman and that there was no material on the record that the date for interview was changed with an ulterior motive.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge in the High Court has made a mechanical approach to the case and did not resolve all the points raised in the writ petition. It may be stated that the appellant, herein, was represented by the counsel in the High Court who argued the case. The High Court is not bound to decide the points raised in the writ petition if the same were not pressed at the time of the arguments. There is no affidavit on behalf of counsel for the appellant in the High Court that the said points were argued in the High Court but were not resolved. It is well-settled principle of law that in case a point which was argued at the time of arguments in the High Court or for that matter in any Court but the same was not resolved, then the concerned counsel has to give an affidavit that the point was argued but the same was not resolved. There is no affidavit on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, who represented the appellant in the High Court that he argued the said points but the same were not resolved.
Therefore, the contention of the appellant that all the points raised in the writ petition were not decided by the High Court cannot be permitted to be raised before this Court without affidavit by the counsel for the appellant. Even otherwise, the points raised by the appellant in the writ Khufia award list' was not made according to the syllabus issued by the Public Service Commission is without any material, because there is nothing on the record as to how the allocation of the marks was made in derogation to the syllabus, especially so when the copy of the 'Khufia award list' is not issued to the candidates and the unattested copy of the award is inadmissible n evidence.
Similarly, the allegation that the quota fixed for direct recruitment was violated is without any proof, it has not been stated as to how the quota reserved for the Jammu and Kashmir Refugees was violated. There must be some material on the record to show that the quota reserved for the refugees was not adhered to.
4. So far as the argument of the appellant that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission was not present at the time of the interview etc., is concerned, the High Court has rightly held that it was not necessary according to rules that the Chairman should be present at the time of interviews.
Rule 10(1) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Procedure Rules, 1994, deals with the quorum of the meeting of the Public Service Commission whereas under rule 11(1), the Chairman can constitute a committee of the members of the Commission for performing the functions of the Commission. This implies that the functions of the commission can be performed even by a committee constituted by the Chairman. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the presence of the Chairman of the Commission was necessary at the time of interview etc., then the appellant, herein should have raised an objection at the time of his interview that as the Chairman was not present, he was not going to give any interview before the members because they were not legally competent to do so. Thus, after appearing before the members of the Commission, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise an objection that the proceedings taken by the members were violative of law; it may be observed that in the instant case the writ petition was filed about eight months of passing of the impugned orders. This of course, is a case of gross negligence and entails the dismissal of the writ petition on this sole ground. Strangely enough, the High Court did not advert to this aspect of the matter.
5. There is nothing on the record to show that the date of the interview was changed with any ulterior motive. There is nothing in the relevant rules that the date once fixed by the Commission cannot be changed afterwards.
' In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed with costs.