Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199—Writ jurisdiction—Appointment of Dean—Violation of merit—Exercise of discretion—Judicial review of executive discretion. Petitioner challenged the appointment of Respondent No.6 as Dean, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, despite securing higher marks in the evaluation process. The appointment was made without assigning any plausible reasons, violating the structured discretion envisaged under the evaluation performa issued by the Competent Authority. Court held that while the executive has discretion to appoint one of the three senior-most professors, such discretion must be exercised in a structured, transparent, and reasoned manner. Absence of cogent reasons for ignoring the top-scoring candidate rendered the appointment arbitrary and unsustainable. ----Cited Cases: Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf (2021 SCMR 1509) Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 630) Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others: In re Human Rights Cases Nos. 8340, 9504-G, 13936-G, 13635-P and 14306-G to 14309-G of 2009 (2011 PLC (CS) 1130) Malik Munsaf Awan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 SC 379) (b) Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975: ----S. 2(2) (First Statutes)—Eligibility criteria—Seniority and merit—Evaluation process—Transparency in appointments. Petitioner argued that he was more qualified and senior, having secured the highest marks in the evaluation process. The Competent Authority, however, appointed Respondent No.6 without any justification. Court observed that the statutory discretion to appoint from among the three senior-most professors must be exercised transparently and based on reasons derived from the evaluation performa. The failure to assign any reason for overlooking the highest-scoring candidate amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power. ----Cited Case: Munir Khan Khatak v. Chancellor, University of Agriculture (2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 10) (c) Administrative Law: ----Exercise of discretion—Structured discretion—Requirement of speaking order—Rule of law. Held, discretion vested in an executive authority must be exercised in a manner that is rational, fair, and transparent. Any appointment decision deviating from structured evaluation criteria must be supported by cogent and plausible reasons. A failure to provide reasons renders the decision arbitrary and subject to judicial scrutiny. Reliance was placed on established jurisprudence emphasizing the need for fairness and reasonableness in the exercise of discretion. ----Cited Case: Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 630) (d) Fundamental Rights: ----Right to career progression—Denial of appointment without valid reasons—Violation of constitutional rights. Court observed that the arbitrary denial of appointment to the petitioner, despite his fulfillment of all requirements and superior merit, jeopardized his professional progression and future opportunities, including eligibility for appointment as Vice Chancellor. Such arbitrary actions infringe upon the petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Constitution. (e) Evaluation Process: ----Merit-based appointments—Evaluation criteria—Binding effect. Evaluation marks awarded under the performa issued by the Competent Authority are binding and cannot be disregarded arbitrarily. The petitioner, having secured the highest marks, had a legitimate expectation of being appointed Dean unless valid reasons justified otherwise. (f) Disposition: ----Impugned notification set aside—Direction for reconsideration. Impugned notification dated 16.12.2019 appointing Respondent No.6 as Dean was set aside. The Competent Authority was directed to reconsider the matter in light of the evaluation criteria and provide cogent reasons for any decision made.

Summary: Petitioner 22 -A for registration of FIR has been dismissed. Seek registration of FIR.

Summary: Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 related to the compliance of procedure for payment of more than Rs.50,000 through specified procedure, therefore upon mere assumption that compliance of S.73 of the sales tax Act, 1990 was not made, recovery demand of entire amount of tax would tantamount to double taxation. Orders of First Appellate Authority were upheld and appeals filed by the department were dismissed.

Summary: Similarly, the Hon`ble Baluchistan High Court in case of Islam Hussain Vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and two others (2018 CLC 820) has clinched the matter once and for all and held that the experience so mentioned in the definition of technocrat is to be counted only after acquiring the prescribed education qualification. The larger bench of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Khizar Haider Malik and others Vs Muhammad Rafiq Malik and another (1987 SCMR 78), while referring to the definition of word experience has held as under:- The amendment in the Recruitment Rules which is the Subject matter of controversy has already been reproduced. The crucial words are with five years experience as such:. The word experience has the Dictionary meaning (the Oxford English Dictionary Volume-3 Page 430) `practical demonstration`, to fulfill in practice` `knowledge resulting from actual observation from what one has undergone. It thus, clearly follows that wherever experience is provided it is in fact the practical demonstration or to fulfill in practice whatever the knowledge he has got in educational qualification.

Summary: (Appeal against conviction)Held: (i) Section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Protection & Welfare Act,2010, is applicable to all forms of sexual abuse without any classificationbetween the Child and child at risk .(ii) In view of contradictions between the statements of the complainant andthe victim, same could not be relied upon for sustaining conviction.(iii) Parents of the victim were best witnesses to corroborate the depositions ofthe complainant and the victim, however, they were not produced before theCourt, which reacted against the prosecution.(iv) The Investigating Officer contradicted the statements of the complainantand the victim.(v) No grouping of the semen/blood on shalwar of the victim with that of theaccused was conducted by the Forensic Expert in order to confirm that thesemen stains on shalwar of the victim were that of the accused.(Appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted in the circumstances).

Summary: (Appeal under Sections 47 & 151 read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act-V) of 1908, for recovery of enhanced rate of compensation).Controversy to be resolved related to the grant of the amount of compensation, determined by the court to adjacent land owners in connection with other Awards, when none of the affectees of Award made recourse for redetermination of their acquired land.Held: (i) Non-objecting or non-appealing land owners would simply require to file a petition for the benefit of enhanced rate of compensation through Award of the Court.(ii) In the present case, none of the affectees of Award No.49 approached the Court for redetermination of the rate of compensation and thereby the Award of Collector becomes full and final.(iii) A classification based on the recognition of the rights of affectees of Award No.144 & 163 cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary.(Appeal was dismissed in the circumstances)

Summary: Parameters to deal with the appeal against conviction and appeal against acquittal are totally different because the acquittal carries double presumption of innocence and same can be reversed only when found blatantly perverse, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, speculative, shocking or rests upon impossibility.

Summary: Appointment of Dean in Faculty of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan - The discretion of the Competent Authority to appoint the Dean is protected, however, it should be exercised in a structured manner and once the candidates have been awarded marks pursuant to an undisputed evaluation process, the appointment of any candidate other than one on top of the score table has to be through cogent reasons. In the present case, the appointment of respondent No.6, who was at serial No.2 of the top three candidates, is set aside as no reasons were given qua ignoring the petitioner, who scored highest marks. Ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and others" (2021 SCMR 1509) in case of appointment of Vice Chancellor followed.

Summary: Pending