Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Zahid Hussain & 15 others VS Respondent: Province of Sindh & others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Shamsuddin Abbasi, Amjad Ali Sahito Title: Zahid Hussain & 15 others vs Province of Sindh & others Case No.: C.P. No. D-1708 of 2023, C.P. No. D-1709 of 2023 Date of Judgment:2024-03-13 Reported As: 2024 SHC 214 Result: Petition Disposed of
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT Amjad Ali Sahito, J-. Through the above-captioned petitions, the petitioners have questioned the procedure adopted by the Sindh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "SPSC") to be illegal, unlawful and contrary to the specific directions of the Honourable Supreme Court given in Suo Moto Case No.18 of 2016 (2017 SCMR 637). 2. The case of petitioners is that in the first phase they participated in the written test held on 30.05.2023 and 01.06.2023 conducted by SPSC in pursuance of advertisement No.04/2021 dated 28.11.2021, whereby applications were invited for the 465 posts of Municipal Officers (BPS-17), 698 posts of Town Officers (BPS-16) and 117 posts of Assistant Accounts Officers (BPS-16) and the petitioners were declared as successful and qualified for the interview for the second phase. The petitioners have pleaded that all the successful candidates were not selected on the merits by the SPSC and there is sufficient material against the successful candidates which reflect nepotism, corruption on the part of SPSC while undertaking this exercise. It is further pleaded that those who were selected were relatives and/or blue eyed of the feudals and/or political leaders of the Sindh. 3. In C.P. No. D-1708/2023, the petitioners have stated that as per answer sheet copy and the answer key displaced by the SPSC, the petitioners had secured top marks as given under this chart:- Sr. No. Name of the Petitioners/ Candidates MarksRoll No. 1.Zahid Hussain s/o Muhammad Hanif 92.5249666 2.Maqsood Ahmed s/o Meer Muhammad 95236043 3.Muhammad Nadeem s/o Abdul Hakeem 90239239
---
## Page 2
4.Muhammad Khurram Khan s/o Muhammad Aslam Khan88250588 5.Abdul Bari s/o Muhammad Aslam 86274725 6.Mohsin Khan s/o Niaz Ahmed Panhwar 82.5213824 7.Sikandar Ali s/o Meer Hassan 80252089 8.Waleed Khan s/o Abdul Sattar 80270621 9.Ghulam Murtaza Shah s/o Syed Juman Shah 80250452 10.Danial s/o Ali Nawaz 78.5221528 11.Naoman Khan s/o Badar-uddinSoomro 78215462 12.Rehan Ahmed s/o Abdul Rehman 75251872 13.Asad Ali Mangrio s/o Dost Muhammad 75217488 14.Nad Ali s/o Ghulam Mustafa Zardari 79289029 15.Sumair Hussain s/o Bakhat Hussain Chandio- 307551 16.Sana d/o Allah Dino Chachar 86258902
4. In C.P. No. D-1709/2023, the petitioners have stated that the SPSC while conducting Competitive Exam announced the result of written test together with their marks obtained; however, there will be separate columns of securing of marks in written test and interview/viva-voce while declaring the candidates as successful or unsuccessful, as the case may be. Nevertheless, the petitioners have tentatively assessed their marks from carbon copy/acknowledge copy of their MCQs answer sheet and found after verification the marks secured as under:- Sr.Roll No.Name of the Petitioner/ Candidate Tentative No.assessm ent of marksPlus 05 marks of two wrong questions 1. 237832Malak Muneer 87.50 92.5 2. 299790Sarang 90.00 --- 3. 215228Amjad Ali 81.00 --- 4. 303036Fayaz Hussain 75.00 --- 5. 254904Zahid Hafeez Baloch 79.50 --- 6. 232619Awais 79.00 --- 7. 281040Arif Hussain 87.50 --- 8. 238991Muhammad Yousuf 80.00 --- 9. 295243Ghulam Murtaza 68.50 --- 10. 211744Muhammad Yousuf 75.00 --- 11. 294310Tariq Mubeen 76.00 -- 12. 221576Usaid Zafar 57.50 --- 13. 291968Naveed Ahmed 75.00 --- 14. 216236Basit Ali Jatoi 77.50 --- 15. 309281Amjad Ali 62.50 --- 16. 217338Rabia 64.00 ---
5. According to petitioners, admittedly marks of the successful candidates were not disclosed in the very first press release issued on 27.07.2023 (Results) by the SPSC and even in the second press
---
## Page 3
release dated 19.10.2023, the marks were yet not disclosed (Final Result). It is alleged that the petitioner's performance in the in the interview conducted by SPSC who was motivated one in which their marks were not given in conformity with the answers with the sole object to extend favour to the successful candidates who were being selected in negation with the merit. The petitioners have alleged that many of the successful candidates are relatives and/or employees of MNA/MPA of Pakistan People's Party, which ex-facie was in conflict with the directives of the Honourable Supreme Court contained in the reported judgement 2017 SCM R 637. In the recent past, this court has declared results of CCE-2020 as illegal in C.P. D-8033 of 2019 by its judgement dated 24.07.2023. 6. The petitioners have brought to our notice certain facts during arguments which were eye- openers. While examining the marks of the petitioners from the answer sheet so uploaded by SPSC and comparing it with the marks the petitioners had obtained in the interview, we noticed that the petitioners who have secured high marks in the written test were being awarded very low marks in the interviews which is not conceivable and hardly any explanation has been offered by the relevant authority on this issue. The petitioners in these proceedings have prayed as under; a. To declare the whole process conducted by respondents-SPSC for recruitment of the subject posts to be illegal, unlawful, void, ab-initio and in violation of the directive/judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. b. To direct the respondents-SPSC to re-conduct written and viva-voce/Interview Tests for the subject posts and may record the same in camera for avoiding any controversy or question on credibility of the same. c. To constitute an Inquiry Committee headed by this Court to probe into a mega scam/corruption committed by the respondents-SPSC in the recruitment process of subject posts. d. To initiate contempt proceedings against the delinquent officers of SPSC for disobeying the orders/directions issued by the Apex Court as well as this Court. e. To grant injunction in respect of operation of merit list dated 19.10.2023 issued by SPSC, which is liable to be suspended and restraining the respondents-SPSC from further process of notifying the list and issuance of any notification thereof. f. To direct the respondent (Chairman NAB) to initiate inquiry against the delinquent officials of the Sindh Public Service Commission. g. To advise the Government to nominate Committee of three senior serving Judges of this Court to monitor the acts and procedure of the selection of the Commission as it nominated for ATC and NAB Courts. 7. Notices were issued to the respondents as well as Additional Advocate General Sindh. 8. The respondents i.e. Chairman, Secretary and Controller of Sindh Public Service Commission filed para-wise comments/reply to the petition wherein it is stated that SPSC, being an independent institution of the Province, did not prejudice nor has any personal grudge against the candidates including the petitioners. However, it is matter of fact that it provides a common transparent platform to all candidates including petitioners to compete and provides level playing field without any discrimination, caste, creed or colour in fair and transparent manner. They have referred that the qualifying pre-interview test by the candidates is testimony of this fact; however, the petitioners appeared in the interview for the post of Municipal Officer (BPS-17) but failed in the same due to their dismal performance before the Interviewing Committee; as such, there is no question of favouritism, nepotism and political affiliation but it is alleged only on assumptions and presumptions, social media hype and sinister propaganda against the SPSC. They have denied the allegations of the petitioners in respect of any violation by referring Instruction (V) of the Advertisement, wherein it is stated that:
---
## Page 4
V) There will be a pre-interview short listing test in accordance with Article No.0803 of Sindh Public Service Commission Recruitment Management Regulation (PMR), which determines the candidates for interview in the following ratio of the standing of successful candidates. a) For 1 to 2 posts, 5 candidates for each post. b) For 3 to 10 posts, 4 candidates for each post. c) For 11 to 100 posts, 3.5 candidates for each post. d) For 101 to 300 posts, 3 candidates for each post. e) For 301 or greater number of posts, 2.5 candidates for each post. 9. They have further stated in their comments that the SPSC has complied with the directions of Apex Court in letter and spirit and displayed the marks of qualified candidates in written part of re- scheduled CCE-2013 as well as the score of failure candidates to ensure transparency. During interview, either some of the petitioners failed or could not be selected due to less marks. They have also mentioned that it is the exclusive domain of the Interview Committee/Panel to evaluate a candidate and grant him/her marks as per its assessment. The authority and wisdom of Selection Committee cannot be challenged, which is best judge at the given time to form an opinion and evaluate the abilities and capabilities of candidates their academic knowledge, attitude, aptitude and personal information. It is also stated that every individual candidate is provided carbon copy to assess his/her marks after the answer key is uploaded on official website to ensure fairness and transparency, therefore, allegations of the petitioner are devoid of logic having no value in the eyes of law. They have further added that more than one lac candidates had applied for the post of Municipal Officer (BPS-17) and due to large number of candidates the written test of the same was conducted in phases. Hence, for uploading the official answer keys on the website is literally a meticulous practice thus needed quite some time to avoid possible errors as 105,748 candidates had appeared in the written test of Municipal Officer, out of which 1,440 passed the written test (1.36%), who were interviewed and out of them only 419 meritorious candidates secured maximum marks in the aggregate (written as well as interview) and declared successful (29%). Still 46 vacancies have been left vacant as suitable candidates were not found by the high-powered Interview Committee, which speaks volumes about the transparent and fair mechanism. They also added that 82 candidates who have been recommended for the post of Municipal Officers have also passed the written test of Town Officers and similarly 72 successful candidates besides 82 candidates (who had qualified written tests of both Municipal Officer and Town Officer) had qualified the written test of IBA, Sukkur for the posts of JEST/PST of School Education Department. They have further added that the SPSC has mechanism for redressal of grievances vide Regulation No.161 of the SPSC (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2023, whereby if a candidate is dissatisfied, he may prefer an appeal to the Chairperson within ten (10) days of the decision and the Chairperson shall constitute committee comprising of three members to hear the appeal and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law/rules/policy and the committee shall decide the appeal within ten days and that decision shall be final and binding on the candidate. Despite such mechanisms, certain allegations have been leveled, which are general in nature and usual blackmailing tactics adopted all the time and the same are not authentic and devoid of facts. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of instant petitions. 10. It is relevant to mention here that the interveners mentioned in the title page filed their respective applications in terms of Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 CPC stating therein that they were declared successful candidates but since they have not been impleaded them as party, as such, they prayed for impleading them as party in these proceedings. Accordingly, their applications were allowed and they were ordered to be joined as respondents in the petition. The intervener/respondent namely Zahid Hussain in his counter affidavit, has stated that instant petition is a product of malafide, prompted by a personal grudge, vendetta and the same is liable
---
## Page 5
to be dismissed. He has also raised preliminary legal objections that the petition is a sheer afterthought inasmuch as the petitioners have been taking part of every process of the recruitment and they never raised any complaint. He has also questioned the jurisdiction of this Court to be barred on the ground that the petitioners have an appropriate remedy by way of filing representation before the respondent-SPSC but they failed to avail such statutory remedy and filed instant baseless petitions. However, it is a settled law that the extraordinary alternate jurisdiction of this Court could only be exercised in absence of any remedy. He has further stated that the identical petitions earlier filed have been disposed of by directing the petitioners to avail the departmental remedy. He has, therefore, stated that no relief could be granted to the petitioners and, the instant baseless petitions merit outright dismissal. 11. To the comments filed by the respondents-SPSC, the petitioners also filed their rejoinder/counter affidavit denying the version of SPSC contending that it is contrary to the admitted facts, based on lies, misguidance and an attempt of misleading. They have further stated that so-called transparency and fairness adopted by the SPSC is evident in decisions/judgments of the Superior Courts. They have further stated that admittedly the marks of the last candidate selected/recommended for the post of Municipal Officers on General Rural Quota secured 120 marks and on General Urban Quota secured on 118.5 marks but malafidely the petitioners who have secured more than 110 marks have been rejected by the SPSC, however, on the other hand 46 seats have been left vacant on the pretext that the eligible candidates could not be found. Similarly for the other posts, the SPSC has not adopted the proper procedure. The petitioner Ghulam Murtaza in his rejoinder/counter affidavit has stated that the comments filed by the respondents-SPSC is nothing but based on lies, misguidance and an attempt of misleading to pose the transparency, fairness and guanines of the procedure adopted by SPSC. He further stated that the candidates who have been declared successful and recommended for the post of CMO and placed in Merit List No.308 to 351, all candidates secured equal 119 marks as per marks sheet published by the SPSC; however, this is very strange and astonished that the candidates of Merit List No.308 to 351 secured equal 119 marks and not a 01 mark less or more. The petitioners have questioned this fact that how the Members of the Interview Committee found the equal abilities, capabilities, attitudes, communication skills etc. among those candidates. The petitioner has also repeated allegations for non-compliance of the orders of Apex Court. 12. The petitioner Malak Muneer in his rejoinder has stated that the respondents-SPSC are taking the advantage of their independent institution and as such leaving no stone unturned and ceiling to its purposeful, intentional illegalities and every time in every selection irrespective of its nature specifically the posts of public servants as well as civil servants; so far BPS-16 & 17 are concerned, the respondents-SPSC being habitual in pick and chose, as such, their acts are contrary to the merits. He has criticized the conduct of interview by contending that its mode was just based upon 3 to 4 questions i.e. (i) What is your name? (ii) What is your father's name (iii) What was/is your father? And (iv) How many siblings are you? Oh! You are Graduate Engineer why you have come here? Why you are insisting for government job? He has stated that these are the questions which have been placed more or less to all candidates in general and the marking not only are surprising one but proving their conductive mind and discriminative act against their own candidates belong to Sindh by killing the merits and looking into the selected persons, their relation and their belongings. In his regard, petitioner has submitted the list of candidates having relationship with the MPA/MNA or Bureaucrats, which is as under:- Sr. No.Merit No.Name & Father's NameRelationship with politician & Bureaucrats
---
## Page 6
1211Waseem Abbas S/O Ghulam AbbasRunning Zardari House in Nawabshah 297Zafar Ali S/O Hadi Bux Zardari Politically associated with MPA Ali Hassan Zardari 3208Zohaib Raza S/O Raza Muhammad ZardariPolitically associated with MPA Ali Hassan Zardari 4141Mir Mursaleen Hassan S/O Hassan Ali ZardariClosely associated with Zardari Family 580Imdad Ali S/O Amb Zardari Politically associated with MPA Ali Hassan Zardari 657Mir Hassan S/O Ali Nawaz Zardari Close side to MPA Faryal Talpur 7151Safdar Ali S/O Munwar Ali Khan Cousin of MPA Sohail Anwar Siyal 839Daniyal Ali Shan S/O Dr. Zulfiqar Ali SiyalCousin of MPA Sohail Anwar Siyal 962Pir Zulfiqar Shah S/O Pir Niaz MuhammadSon of MPA KulsoomChandio 10177Shoukat Samoon S/o Amir Bux P.A to KashifShoro (Mayor of Hyd) 11185Ashfaq Ahmed Soomro S/o Khadim Hussain SoomroP.A to Jamil Soomro (Political Secretary to Political Party Chairman) 12 1Syed Amir Ali S/o Syed Momin Hussain ShahSon of Customs official 1331Tahir Ali S/o Imtiaz Hussain GhanghroIncharge of Naudero House 14238Naved S/o Iqbal Mirani S/o Ex-Municipal Commissioner 15134Zuhaib Ali S/o M. Juman MangrioBrother of Tarique Ali Mangrio (UC) Chairman & Right hand of MPA 16173Iqbal Dawood S/o M. DawoodRelative of MNA Sikandar Rahpoto 17116Shahzad S/o Muhammad Ali Rahpoto Relative of MNA Sikandar Rahpoto 18223Qamaruddin S/o Ghulam Nabi HalepotoClose side to Syed Murad Ali Shah as well as Saleem Bajari 19112Sharjeel Ahmed S/o AliBrother-in-law of DIG Azfar Mehsar Dino 20166Masroor Ahmed S/o Manzoor AhmedClose side of Saleem Bajari & Murad Ali Shah (Former C.M Sindh) 21243Abdul Jabbar S/o Muhammad Yousuf PanhwarBrother of Ayoub Panhwar, AD (Recruitment) SPSC 22365Surya Abid D/o M. Abid Rehmani D/o Former MNA Shahida Rehmani 23209Kashif S/o Qamaruddin GopangS/o Chairman, District Council, Qambar ShahdadKot 24111Farhad S/O Hidayatullah ChhajroS/o Ex-DG, Agriculture Extension Sindh 25212Ghulam Murtaza S/o Nephew of EX-DG, Agriculture
---
## Page 7
Muhammad Khan Chhajro Extension Sindh 2686Ayaz Ali S/o Ghulam Hussain ChhajroBrother of XEN Irrigation Atta Muhammad Chhajro
He further added that the Interview Committee members were never in a position to ask academic questions and unable to frame the questions for interview even they did not ask a single question of current affairs or international affairs, as such, it was all poor assessment on the part of respondents-SPSC. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the entire process adopted by the respondents-SPSC is contrary to the law and directives of the Apex Court; that the list provided by them as above, such persons were appointed as Municipal Officers who are relatives of the MPA and MNA of political party, as such, order for an inquiry at high level be made to dig out the truth and failure of respondents-SPSC in the recruitment process in accordance with law and such report may be submitted to this Court through Additional Registrar of this Court; that it is the state of Interview Committee that at the time of conducting Interviews one of the Members namely Mr. Rizwan Memon was wearing Sports Dress, which is informal dress against norms showing his seriousness; that he is/was also involved in corruption and corrupt practices and it is an open secret that he has sold out his share posts in millions of rupees; that since last two decades almost every exam result declared by the SPSC had been challenged by hundreds of the aggrieved candidates and those were challenged in number of petitions and it is evident from the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by this Court in a C.P. No.D-8033/2019 wherein this Court has declared the examination results of CCE-2020 as illegal, null and void with certain observations; that it is alarming situation that since the inception of SPSC all the recruitments as recommended are without regulations and there is no mechanism for conducting interviews as the Interview result does not reflect any opinion or marks of the subject specialist/expert and as to how marks will be awarded with regard to questions on subject/professional skills and rules of SPSC do not provide right of appeal; that the SPSC has failed to follow directions of Apex Court to publicly display the marks of the written tests and results of interviews in each subject as well as the cumulative total against the candidates' roll numbers on its website, on the notice board in the premises and in one Urdu, English and Sindhi newspaper but wilfully, intentionally disobedience has been made; that the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 are being violated and subjected to discrimination and by such illegal acts, the life, liberty and future of the petitioners have been made on stake by the respondents-SPSC. The learned counsel have prayed that the SPSC has completely failed to conduct written and interviews tests in transparent, fair and legal manner, as such, the entire process of the subject may be declared illegal, null and void with direction for taking legal actions against the delinquents pointed as above. 14. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate Generals Sindh has negated the allegations of the petitioners. He has pointed out that there is proper mechanism/procedure for recruitment of the candidates in fair and transparent manner; that under R.161 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2023 provide the right of Representation/Appeal to the aggrieved candidate but the petitioners have failed to exhaust it; however, their allegations made in the instant petitions are baseless and meritless; that more than 10 million candidates have participated in the written test for the post of Municipal Officer; however, 1,440 have succeeded to qualify for interview whereas in the interview 419 candidates were declared as successful despite there were 465 posts of Municipal Officers and yet 46 vacancies have been left vacant as suitable candidates were not found by the high-powered Interview Committee, which converses level about the transparent and fair mechanism. He further
---
## Page 8
contended that in past similar types of petitions were filed only in order to blackmail the authorities of SPSC but despite that the SPSC continued to keep up the manner in recruiting the suitable candidates for various posts. So far the petitioners are referring the closure of SPSC through the order of this Court, the said order was set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. He argued that any person has right to participate in the competitive examination for any post, as such, the successful candidates having relation with the political persons or any of the officers is meaningless as there is no restriction for participation of such candidates in the recruitment process in any law; that the petitioners have questioned the entire process of the SPSC, which is nothing but a figment of imagination and legally farfetched because of failure to exhaust remedy available with the petitioners Under R.161 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2023. Lastly prayed for dismissal of instant petitions. In support of the his contentions, they have relied upon the case reported as MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SANGRI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others [2014 SCMR 157], and orders passed by this Court in C.Ps. No.D-8033 of 2019, 404 and 52 others of 2023. 15. Learned counsel for interveners/respondents have contended that the petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners have not exhausted remedy available to them under R.161 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2023 and failure to implead all the successful candidates as party in the petitions for the reasons that if any adverse order is passed, which shall certain affect them, as such, no one should be condemned unheard; that all the successful candidates have been declared on merits in a fair and transparent manner and the domain of the Committee for conducting Interviews cannot be questioned though it was within the prescribed law and procedure. The petitioners have hurled various facts without any rhyme and reasons, which cannot be exactly co-related in the context of the petition, as such, the same are liable to be discarded. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 17. Admittedly, at the…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.