Interview process can't be challenge in writ petition.
پاکستان کی سپریم کورٹ میں دائر پٹیشنز نمبر 154-K اور 166-K کے ذریعے سندھ ہائی کورٹ کے 15 دسمبر 2021 کے حکم کو چیلنج کیا گیا، جس میں درخواست گزاروں کی دائر کردہ آئینی درخواستیں مسترد کردی گئی تھیں۔
**حقائق:**
درخواست گزار، وحید گل خان اور ممتاز علی، نے 2010 کے اشتہار کے تحت کھلی آسامیوں کے لیے درخواست دی، تحریری امتحان پاس کیا اور انٹرویو کے لیے بلائے گئے۔ انہوں نے الزام لگایا کہ انٹرویو کے بعد کوئی معلومات نہیں ملی اور بعض ایسے امیدواروں کو بھرتی کیا گیا جنہوں نے تحریری امتحان نہیں دیا تھا۔ اس پر انہوں نے آئینی درخواستیں دائر کیں۔
**مسائل:**
1. کیا صرف تحریری امتحان پاس کرنا اور انٹرویو دینا کسی کو تقرری کا حق دیتا ہے؟
2. کیا انٹرویو کے نتائج کو ہائی کورٹ کی آئینی دائرہ اختیار میں چیلنج کیا جا سکتا ہے؟
**عدالتی تجزیہ:**
1. **تقرری کا کوئی حق نہیں:** عدالت نے کہا کہ تحریری امتحان پاس کرنا اور انٹرویو دینا کسی بھی امیدوار کو تقرری کا حق نہیں دیتا۔ عدالت نے *سیکرٹری فنانس اور دیگر بمقابلہ غلام صفدر* (2005 SCMR 534) کے فیصلے کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ صرف امتحان اور انٹرویو کی بنیاد پر تقرری کا کوئی حق نہیں ہے۔
2. **انٹرویو کی سبجیکٹو نوعیت:
** انٹرویو میں سبجیکٹو جائزہ لیا جاتا ہے۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ انٹرویو بورڈ کے فیصلے کو بدلنا عدالت کے دائرہ اختیار میں نہیں ہے، جیسے کہ *محمد اشرف سنگری بمقابلہ وفاق پاکستان* (2014 SCMR 157) میں وضاحت کی گئی۔ عدالت صرف تب مداخلت کرتی ہے اگر ریکارڈ پر بددیانتی، تعصب، یا اہم غلطیاں ظاہر ہوں۔
3. **مبینہ بے قاعدگیاں:
** درخواست گزاروں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ کچھ امیدواروں نے تحریری امتحان نہیں دیا، مگر یہ مسائل درخواستوں میں شامل نہیں تھے اور نہ ہی کوئی مخصوص درخواست کی گئی تھی۔ ہائی کورٹ نے درست طور پر ان دعووں کو مسترد کیا۔
**فیصلہ:**
سپریم کورٹ نے درخواستوں کو بے بنیاد قرار دیتے ہوئے مسترد کر دیا اور اپیل کی اجازت نہیں دی۔ عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ آئینی دائرہ اختیار میں انٹرویو کے نتائج یا غیر متعلقہ بے قاعدگیوں کو چیلنج نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
Must read Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Civil Petitions No.154-K of 2022 & 166-K of 2022
[Against the Order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Sindh in
C.P.No.D-756 of 2013 and C.P.No.D-3575 of 2013]
Waheed Gul Khan
(In Civil Petition No.154-K/2022)
Mumtaz Ali
(In Civil Petition No.166-K/2022)
…Petitioner(s)
Versus
Province of Sindh and others
(in both cases)
…Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Qaim Ali, ASC
(in both cases)
For Respondents No.1-3 : Mr. Sibtain Mehmood, Additional
Advocate General Sindh
Ms. Lubna Parvez, AOR
a/w Maqsood Ahmed Kalhoro,
Additional Secretary Food Department
Nisar Ahmed Memon, SEO
(in both cases)
Date of Hearing
: 26.07.2024.
JUDGMENT
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.- Through these
petitions, the petitioners have called in question the order dated
15.12.2021 (“impugned order”) passed by the High Court of Sindh
(“High Court”) whereby the constitutional petitions (C.P.No.D-756 of
2013 and C.P.No. D-3575 of 2013) filed by them were dismissed through
a consolidated order.
2.
Facts in brief are that petitioners applied for a job in
the Food Department, Government of Sindh that was announced
pursuant to advertisement dated 14.02.2010 and passed the
C.Ps.No. 154-K of 2022 and 166-K of 2022 -2-
written test and were called for an interview vide letter dated
26.12.2011. The grievance of the petitioners is that after the
interview they received no information about the result. Petitioners
further allege that they came to know that certain candidates were
appointed who never appeared in the written test. Therefore they
filed constitutional petitions which were dismissed vide impugned
order, hence these petitions.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
impugned order failed to consider the grievance of the petitioners
correctly; that alleged appointment have been made in violation of
law; that alleged appointments are liable to be declared illegal and
that petitioners are entitled to be appointed.
4.
On the contrary, learned Law Officer submits that
interview result cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction before
the High Court and that impugned order being well-reasoned
needs no interference.
5.
We have considered the contentions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material
available on record with their able assistance.
6.
Present case raises the question that whether mere
passing a written test and being called for interview creates any
right/interest in the favour of the candidates and secondly whether
interview result can be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction
of the High Court.
7.
It is a settled principle of law that mere qualifying for
the interview does not create any vested right for appointment to a
specific post in favour of the candidates.
C.Ps.No. 154-K of 2022 and 166-K of 2022 -3-
8.
This court in the case of Secretary Finance and others
v. Ghulam Safdar (2005 SCMR 534) has held that:-
“10. Be that as it may, it is difficult to sustain the prayer
of the respondents since mere selection in written
examination and interview test would not, by itself, vest
candidates with a Fundamental Right for enforcement as
such in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of the
High Court. Admittedly, the appellants had not issued any
offer of appointment to the respondents and their
appointment was subject to clearance by the
Establishment Division under the Centralised System of
Recruitment till it was discontinued in November, 1996,
which again coincided with the imposition of ban on fresh
recruitments, which could not be safely ignored by the
appellants..."
9.
An interview is inherently a subjective evaluation, and
a Court of law does not have jurisdiction to substitute its opinion
with that of the Interview Board to provide relief to anyone. The
role of the Interview Board is to evaluate candidates based on a
variety of subjective criteria, which may include interpersonal
skills, presentation, and other intangible qualities that are difficult
to measure objectively. These assessments are inherently
qualitative and depend on the opinion of interviewers, who are
appointed for their expertise and ability to make such evaluations.
However, this does not mean that the decisions of the Interview
Board are beyond scrutiny. If there were any indications of mala
fides, bias, or significant errors in opinion that are apparent from
the records, the Court would certainly be compelled to intervene.
10.
This court in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v.
Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 157), has ruled that:-
“Essentially an interview is a subjective test and it is not
possible for a Court of law to substitute its own opinion
for that of the Interview Board in order to give the
petitioner relief. What transpired at the interview and
what persuaded one member of the Board to award him
only 50 marks is something which a Court of law is
certainly not equipped to probe and to that extent we
cannot substitute our own opinion with that of the
Interview Board. Obviously if any mala fides or bias or for
that matter error of judgment were floating on the surface
of the record we would have certainly intervened as Courts
of law are more familiar with such improprieties rather
than dilating into question of fitness of any candidate for a
C.Ps.No. 154-K of 2022 and 166-K of 2022 -4-
particular post which as observed above is subjective
matter and can best be assessed by the functionaries who
are entrusted with this responsibility...”
11.
It is an admitted position that petitioners passed the
written examination but did not succeed in the interview, which
was a mandatory requirement for the test. Written test measures a
candidate's knowledge and expression skills but does not evaluate
important personality traits like communication skills, leadership
qualities, and decision-making abilities. These traits are assessed
during the interview. The interview process allows evaluators to see
how candidates interact and respond in real-time, offering a
complete picture of their suitability for the job. In the instant case,
however, the petitioners failed to pass the interview examination as
they did not meet the necessary standards in the interview. Thus,
learned High Court was correct in its view that constitutional
jurisdiction cannot be invoked for challenging the interview
process.
12.
The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the appointments of certain candidates are illegal
because they did not appear in the written test was rightly
discarded by the learned High Court. The learned High Court has
correctly observed that these individuals were not made parties to
the case, nor any specific prayer was made regarding their
appointments. Therefore, in the absence of such inclusion, their
appointments cannot be examined in the constitutional
jurisdiction.
13.
We have carefully examined the impugned order and
find that reasoning advanced by the learned High Court is justified
and plausible. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to
C.Ps.No. 154-K of 2022 and 166-K of 2022 -5-
point out any illegality or infirmity, hence, no case for interference
has been made out.
14.
Consequently, these petitions, being devoid of merit,
are dismissed and leave is refused.
15.
Above are the reasons for our short order pronounced
on even date.
Judge
Judge
Karachi,
26th July, 2024
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Tags
Interview process