Summary: (a) Civil service-------Appointment to advertised post---Scope---Grievance of petitioner was that he had passedwritten test, endurance test as well as appeared in general interview however, he wasdeclared 'Fail' in general interview despite the fact that he had been on top in other tests---Validity---Petitioner could not obtain 8 marks out of 20 marks in general interview,therefore, he was declared 'Fail' by the interview committee---Clause 19 of the advertisementclearly demonstrated that the candidates had to pass all exams/interview and in case offailure at any stage, they would not be recruited---Constitutional petition, being meritless,was dismissed.(b) Civil service-------Appointment to advertised post---Scope---Advertisement is a promise stating all the ruleswhich the authority undertakes to observe in consideration for giving employment to themost suitable candidate.(c) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, exercise of---Object---Scope---Objectof proceedings initiated under Art. 199 of the Constitution is only the enforcement ofFundamental Rights and not the establishment of rights

Summary: The crime report indicated that the petitioners, armed with shotguns, jointly targeted the deceased. The motive for the murder was believed to be related to the abduction of some females.During the trial, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code. However, the High Court disbelieved the motive and altered the death penalty to life imprisonment for the petitioners.In the Supreme Court, the counsel for the convicts argued that there was a conflict between the ocular account and the autopsy report's findings. The counsel for the complainant contended that the overall evidence supported the guilt of the petitioners and sought restoration of the death penalty.After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, the Supreme Court held that there was a troubled relationship between the complainant's and petitioners' families, suggesting a motive for the murder. While the conviction of Muhammad Ameer alias Kali was set aside due to insufficient evidence, Riaz Ahmed's conviction was maintained. Criminal Petition No. 746-L of 2016 also failed. The request for leave was declined.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)-------S.13---Unlicensed possession of arms---Appreciation of evidence---Scope---Allegationagainst accused was that he, in order to avoid his arrest, opened firing upon the Leviespersonnel which resulted in firearm injury to a constable, however, he was overpowered andwas found to be in possession of an SMG rifle along with 3 magazines containing 35 livecartridges---Injured constable was not produced before the Trial Court nor was his medicalcertificate produced---No empties were recovered from the place of occurrence by theInvestigating Officer---Burden was on the prosecution to prove not only that the firearm wasrecovered from the possession of accused but also that he was not possessing any validlicence to keep the same---Weapon recovered from the possession of accused was never sentto the Ballistic Expert, therefore, without ascertaining the nature of weapon and its conditionpunishment could not be awarded---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.Rahim Bux v. State 2010 PCr.LJ 642 rel.(b) Criminal trial-------Guilt against the accused must rest surely and firmly on the evidence produced in the caseand plain inference of the guilt may irresistibly be drawn from the evidence.

Summary: Background:The case involves Civil Appeals No. 433 to 438 and 596 of 2020, arising from a consolidated judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 03.01.2020. The Respondents had applied for various posts advertised by the Government of Balochistan. After recommendations for appointment were made by a Selection/Recruitment Committee, the department failed to announce the results or publish a merit list. The Respondents approached the Balochistan High Court seeking relief, which was granted. The Government of Balochistan challenged this order in the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether the recruitment process conducted during the Caretaker Government was legal.Whether there was a transparent process of testing and interviewing.Whether the recommendations made by the Committee were valid.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process conducted during the Caretaker Government was illegal, as the Caretaker Government is only authorized to manage day-to-day affairs until a duly elected government takes charge. They found no evidence of a transparent process of testing and interviewing, and the recommendations made by the Committee lacked validity. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and ruled in favor of the Government of Balochistan. The Respondents' appeals were dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1205): Cited to establish the limited mandate of a Caretaker Government.The Recruitment Policy, 2009: Referred to in the context of the requirements for transparency in the recruitment process.Par a-5 of letter-dated 15.03.2016: Cited regarding the observance of the Recruitment Policy, 1991.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petitioner is aggrieved that board has terminated his services as CEO of DRAP

Summary: Criminal Appeal: NAB Appeal: Against Conviction 11 Years

Summary: No one shall suffer for the acts of the others.