Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ADIL LATIF and another VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT through Secretary and another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Amir Hani Muslim, Tasaddaq Hussain Jillani Title:MUHAMMAD ADIL LATIF and another vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION
AND POWER DEPARTMENT through Secretary and another Case No.: Civil Petitions Nos.1771 and 1772-L of 2010 Date of Judgment:2011-05-26 Reported As: 2012 PLC (C.S.) 740 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---This order shall dispose the titled civil petitions as both have arisen from a common judgment dated 21-7-2010 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the petitioners. 2. The grievance being voiced before the learned Tribunal was that the departmental promotion examination held by the Irrigation and Power Department for Sub-Engineers was conducted on 11- 10-2010 and 12-10-2010 but without declaring result, they entirely changed the criteria and prescribed mode of question paper i,e, 40% of the paper was to be based on M.C.Qs. And the rest of the 60% was based on subjective paper. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that having held the examination under certain criteria, the respondent-department could not have changed the mode of papers and that the promotion chances of the petitioners by the new mode have been adversely affected. 4. Having heard the learned counsel at some length, we find that it is not denied by the learned counsel, on court query, that the new criteria laid down by the department is not violate of the PWD Code. Even otherwise, the impugned notification does not affect the prescribed syllabus of the examination. There is nothing in the Code which prevents the competent authority to change the criteria of the examination within the outlines of the prescribed syllabus at any time. Since there is no allegation that the substituted criterion is against the prescribed syllabus, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. Therefore, the petition, lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and .