' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.---This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the High Court passed on 14-6-2001, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the appointment order of respondent No,4, on the recommendations of the Selection Committee as Inspector B-11 in the Cooperative Societies Department, was dismissed.
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated are that an advertisement was published in Daily Jang dated 6-4-1999, whereby the applications were invited for four posts of Inspectors B-11 in the Department of Cooperative Societies. Only those persons were held entitled to apply for the said posts who were graduate. However, it was laid down that preference shall be given to graduates in Commerce, Economics and Agriculture. In the advertisement one post was allocated to District. Muzaffarabad and remaining three posts were located to District Mirpur, Bagh and refugees settled in Pakistan. The dispute raised in this appeal is to the extent of the post reserved for District Muzaffarabad. The contesting parties before us who hailed from District Muzaffarabad, applied for the seat placed in the quota of District Muzaffarabad. The Selection Committee conducted test and interview in order to determine the merits of the candidates. In the merit list the contesting respondent was placed at Serial No,1, whereas the appellant before us was shown as Serial No,2. On the basis of his merit determined by the Selection Committee, the contesting respondent was inducted in the service as Inspector B-11 vide order dated 14-12-1999.
The appellant feeling aggrieved from the order of appointment of the contesting respondent availed the Constitutional. Jurisdiction of the High Court through a writ petition which was dismissed vide judgment under challenge dated 14-6-2001.
3. Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the contesting respondent was a graduate in 3rd division, whereas his client was B.Sc. (Hons.), which degree according to the University Grants Commission is equivalent of M.Sc., therefore, the Selection Committee fell in error while recommending the contesting respondent. In the same way the Registrar Cooperative Societies in his capacity as authority for the purpose of appointment of Inspector B-11 committed a grave error in law in accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee by issuing order of appointment of the contesting respondent. He further argued that in para. Six of his writ petition his client had pleaded that the order of appointment of the contesting respondent was illegal, mala fide, and against law, as such liable to be set aside on various grounds which were thereafter mentioned. This paragraphs was admitted by the Government in its written statement. He relied upon the relevant part of the written statement which reads as follows:- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the official respondents had admitted that order of appointment of respondent No,4 was illegal, result of mala fide, as such the High Court had no option but to set aside the order of appointment of contesting respondent and issue necessary writ as was prayed for by the appellant. According to him as appellant was a holder of degree of B.Sc. (Hons.) in Agriculture, which is treated equivalent to M.Sc. By the University Grants Commission, therefore, he was entitled to nine additional marks on this ground. He further argued that his client is a very good player of Football. Hockey, Badminton, Table Tennis, and Cricket, therefore, keeping in view his extraordinary sports career he was entitled to extra marks which were not recorded in his favour by the Selection Committee.
5. After concluding his arguments on merits of the case. Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, made a request that the learned counsel for the contesting respondent may not be allowed to argue the case. According to him the 'Vakalatnarma' available on file and signed by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, Advocate, bears the name of his client who is appellant in the case, therefore, he in these circumstances was not justified to appear on behalf of the contesting respondents at leave stage and file concise statement on his behalf. In the same way the learned Additional Advocate- General cannot be allowed to argue the case on behalf of the official respondents as his predecessor without filing a separate concise statement had owned the concise statement which was filed by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, Advocate on behalf of the contesting respondent, which in view of the above reason cannot be read against his client. He, therefore, requested that the learned counsel for the respondents may not be allowed to argue the case on behalf of the respondents and also cited certain authorities.
6. While controverting the last argument of Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, argued that if the name of the appellant has been mentioned on the ' Vakalatnama' that is the result of inadvertencies, therefore, such defect is an irregularity which is curable. According to him, he appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent in the High Court and defended his appointment order. The said respondent is present in the Court, who owns him as his Advocate in the case. He contended that inadvertently the name of the appellant, has been entered in the body of the 'Vakalatnama'. This is not sufficient to hold him Advocate of the appellant. He also cited various authorities on this subject.
7. We cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned counsel for the respondent may not be allowed to argue the case. Admittedly Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of contesting respondent in the High Court. This is not the case of the appellant that he was ever engaged by him in the present case, therefore, mere this fact that in the body of the Vakalatnama' his name has been entered, is not sufficient to deprive Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal from appearing on behalf of contesting respondent. It appears to be due to inadvertence and the result of human error amounting to an irregularity which can be cured at any time particularly when the contesting respondent who is present in the Court has acknowledged Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal as his counsel in the case. In this matter the reliance is placed upon an authority of this Court titled Muhammad Riaz Khan v. Sardar Rahim Dad and 12 others (PLD 1990 SC(AJ&K) 13). The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-- "It is evident from the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the parties that there is almost consensus amongst the judicial authorities on the point that if a power of attorney, 'Vakalatnama' or plaint is not signed by the party, his attorney or his counsel due to oversight or inadvertence, the defect is an irregularity which is curable by doing the needful, irrespective of the provisions contained in section 196 of the Contract Act. In all such cases the attorney or counsel acts in pursuance of the instructions of the party concerned, but a formal defect may occur due to mistake or negligence. The authority to do an act by a counselor an attorney is there but same is not strictly in conformity with requirement of law in view of contents of the documents or due to an omission, such as non-signing of the document by the party or any other formal defect of like nature; these defects are regarded only as irregularities and not illegalities. "
8. The authorities referred by the learned counsel for the parties need not be discussed in this judgment because the precedent would be authority only if the facts of two cases are common.
The facts of the present case are different and have nothing common with the facts of the cases referred by the learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, it is said that precedents fall in distinct cadres. The authorities on the question of law need no reference of facts of a particular case or authority which must necessarily be honoured. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem (1994 SCMR 2231) opined as under:-- "19. Precedent cases fall in two distinct categories. In the first category fall the decisions which decide a question of law or are based upon or enunciate a principle of law within the meaning of Articles 198 and 201 of the Constitution and are, therefore, binding if the decision be by the Supreme Court, on all Courts in Pakistan and if the decision be by a High Court, on all Courts subordinate to it. In the second category fall the cases which are not so binding but are merely illustrations of the application of the principles of law enunciated in the first category of precedent cases. So, in order that a decision on a question of law is binding within the meaning of Articles 198 and 201 of the Constitution it is not enough that a legal proposition follows logically from it; that question must have been actually decided."
' The objection is without substance. In view of these facts the same is, therefore, repelled. The learned counsel for the respondents are allowed to argue the case on behalf of the respondents.
9. On the other hand while arguing on facts of the case, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal as well as Mr. Riaz Naveed Butt, the learned Additional Advocate-General, argued that the basic qualification laid down for the post of Inspector B-11 was the graduation, however, if the contesting candidates would have obtained equal marks in written examination and interview conducted by the Selection Committee, in that case the preference would have been given to that candidate who had passed his graduation in Commerce, Economics and Agriculture. In the present case the contesting respondent obtained more marks than the appellant who was granted nine marks for his B.Sc.
(Hons.) degree as compared to contesting respondent who was given six marks for the simple graduation. As the contesting respondent had obtained more marks in written examination, therefore, the Selection Committee, was left with no choice but to submit its recommendations in his favour. The Registrar Cooperative Societies in his capacity as authority also had no alternative but to issue the order in accordance with the merit determined by the Selection Committee.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents, there was no justification for the Selection Committee to grant any additional marks for B.Sc. Degree or B.A. Degree to the candidates. They further argued that the Selection Committee imported this criteria from the Public Service Commission wherein the marks are given to the candidates under the statutory provisions. In the present case the Selection Committee was required to conduct the test and interview and determined merits strictly in the light of the same. There is no statute under which the Selection Committee was required to grant additional marks to the appellant for being good player of Football, Hockey, Badminton, Table Tennis and Cricket. It was further argued by them that inadvertently due to human error para. No,6 was admitted as correct otherwise all subparagraphs under this para. Have been denied in the written statements by the Additional Advocate-General of the time who had filed written statements on behalf of official respondents.
10. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. In the written statement all other grounds were denied as correct by the official respondents, however, in the beginning of paragraph No,6 it was accepted as correct. We in these circumstances agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that this was the result of slip of pen, which can occur due, to human error. The contesting respondent in his written statement has categorically denied the averments of the writ petition. Even otherwise as rightly opined by the learned Judge in the High Court, he cannot be penalised for the clerical mistake committed by the learned Additional Advocate-General of the time while drafting written statements on behalf of official respondents. No certificate for extra-curricular activities was appended by the appellant with his writ petition even no such certificate has been filed with the appeal before us. In the same way no statutory rules are available in support of this contention that he was entitled to nine extra marks for his B.Sc. (Hons.) degree which is treated equivalent to M.Sc. By the University Grants Commission. We have to enforce law as it is. The Courts cannot add or substract anything from the relevant law. As, no such marks could be given under the provisions of relevant statute, therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant should have been given additional marks for B.Sc. (Hons.) or for his being an excellent player of Football, Hockey, Badminton, Table Tennis and Cricket.
' In view of above, finding no force in this appeal, the same stands dismissed with costs.