• 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHhilED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN �
•. 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZA.HAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
Mk' ') 
:Civil AppeL__
1 No.1.78 of 2020  
Against judgment dated 07.11.2019 of 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in 
Civil Revision No.127-B of 2016. 
Government of KPK through Secretary „..Appellant(s) 
Elementary & Secondary Education, 
Peshawar & Others 
VERSUS  
Latif Ullah Khan �
...Respondent(s) 
For the Appellant(s): �Mr. Atif Ali Khan, Addi.AG, KP 
For the Respondent(s): �
Mr. Tariq Javed Qureshi, A.SC 
OA, ft...5 7or.j._,-,4 
Date of Hearing: �
03.02.2021 
JUDGMENT 
'JAZ tJL AHSAN,  J-. Through the instant Appeal 
by leave of the Court, the Appellants have challenged the 
judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 
07.11.2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Impugned 
Judgment') whereby a Revision Petition (C.R1Va 127-B of 
2016) filed by them was dismissed. 
2. � Briefly stated the facts necessary for the 
disposal of this appeal are that the Appellants advertised 
various posts of Primary School Teachers (PST) in the Daily 
Aaj newspaper, dated 16.10.2008, inviting applications from 
eligible candidates. As per the said advertisement, sixty 
, 
Civil  Appeal No.1 78 of 2020 
percent of the posts would be :filled through initial 
recruitment based on merit at District level and the 
remaining forty percent would be filled through recruitment 
on merit at union council level. The Respondent, being a 
permanent resident of union council Isak Khel and holding a 
two-year diploma in education from Regular institute of 
Technical Education (R.I.T.E), applied against the respective 
post. However, after completing the requisite test and 
interview, the Respondent was placed at No.24 on the merit 
list and therefore other candidates who were higher on the 
merit list were appointed against the vacant posts. 
Aggrieved, the Respondent filed a civil suit for declaration 
and mandatory injunction against the Appellant in the Court 
of Senior Civil Judge, Lakki Marwat on 02.04.2012. The 
Respondent had two main grievances. First, that he is a 
qualified diploma holder in education from R.I.T.E whereas 
all the appointees had their diplomas from Ailama Iqbal 
Open University and as per prevailing policy the R.I.T.E 
diploma was given preference over the diplomas of other 
institutions. Therefore, he contended that on the basis of 
such policy he should have been placed at serial No.01 on 
the merit list. The second grievance of the Respondent was 
that no marks had been given to him for his five years of 
experience in the field of teaching whereas under 
recruitment policy the Appellants were bound to count five 
extra marks in the total mark of the Respondent. After 
recording evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favor 
of the Respondent vide judgment and decree dated 
-':',1*A-• �
7:4E-VATXWWW-7,74ZZ-44.7.177 
Civil Appeal No.178 of 2020 
17.03.2015, directing the Appellant to appoint the 
Respondent against one of the available posts of PST in 
Union Council Isak Khel without further delay. 
Subsequently, the Appellant challenged the judgment and 
decree before the Additional District Judge, Lakki Marwat, 
which was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.05.2016. The 
Appellants then filed a Civil Revision Petition before the 
Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, which was also 
dismissed vide judgment dated 07.11.2019. Aggrieved of the 
same, the Appellant approached this Court and sought leave 
to appeal. 
3. � Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide 
order dated 02.03.2020 which is reproduced below for ease 
of reference: 
"Learned Additional Advocate General, KP has 
contended that all the three Court have misread the 
evidence, in that, DW-2 in his evidence, has made no 
admission that the 05 extra-marks were to be granted on 
account of field experience, as in his very cross examination 
he stated that no such policy of the Government was in. the 
field rather, some proposal was circulating about it. He 
further contends that on merits, the respondent has not 
qualified and Hasinuilah, who has obtained 67.832 marks 
from Isa Khel, Sher Zaman who has obtained 58.84 marks 
and Shafiullah, who has obtained 58.826, were appointed, 
while the marks obtained by the respondent Latifullah are 
51.89, He further contends that even if the alleged 5 marks 
are counted for the petitioner, still he will not have similar 
marks as that of the three candidates notes above, who 
since have been appointed. He further contends that the 
suit was filed by the respondent after three years of
appointment of process and such process of appointment
had become past and closed transaction, which could not
have been interfered with by the Court. 
' 
1?1,1L �
2_211:}'E4lgfi-,1111,1:21.0a210 
Civil Appeal No.178 of 2020 �
4 
2. �
The contentions raised by the learned AAG require 
consideration. Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter 
alia, the same. The appeal shall be heard on the available 
record but the parties are allowed to file additional 
documents within a period of one month. As the matter 
relates to service, office is directed to fix .the same 
expeditiously, preferably after three months." 
4. 
The main argument advanced by the learned 
counsel for the Appellant is that all three Courts have 
misread the evidence and ignored the fact that all the posts 
were filled purely on merit in accordance with the relevant 
law and policy. With regards to the argument of the 
Respondent that five additional marks should be added to 
his total mark based on his five years of field experience, 
learned counsel contends that no such recruitment policy 
exists in practice and that only a mere a proposal regarding 
it has been circulated. Learned counsel points out that the 
Respondent's own witness, DW-2, in his cross-examination 
admitted this very fact. Thus, he argues that in the absence 
of any policy in practice, no relief could have been granted to 
the Respondent on the ground of five years of field 
experience. 
5. 
Learned counsel for the Respondent, on the 
other hand, has argued that since the Respondent was a 
qualified diploma holder from R.I.T.E, which is an. eighteen-
month diploma, whereas the appointees obtained their 
diplomas from Allama Iqbal Open University, which is a
nine-month diploma, therefore, in accordance with relevan
policy, the Respondent should be given preference over other
Z.T,T:IlinETITYEZEINFEaIESENZHEE113.1:EIF!0:717,72:TE::*'1: ' �
iFv.,;:!...r....44q.":..v),.:-1:111,  kilfsP2U6,127 L42 �
P.d?&:2:1-..i;Y:::;:. 
Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2020 �
5 
candidates. Learned counsel further submits that no 
additional marks for experience were granted to the 
Respondent despite the fact that he possessed five years of 
experience in the field of teaching and as per recruitment 
policy five additional marks should have been added to his 
total mark: It has also been argued before us that other 
similarly placed candidates who possessed the R.I.T.E 
diploma were given preference and appointed against the 
posts of PST. Hence, a refusal to grant the same relief to the 
Respondent amounts to discrimination and violation of his 
fundamental rights protected under the Constitution of the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. 
6. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the 
parties at considerable length and gone through the case 
record. The key question which falls for the determination of 
this Court is whether under the recruitment policy the 
Respondent should have been appointed against the post of 
PST based on his qualification and his five years' worth of 
field experience in education. 
7. 
Perusal of the record reveals that the 
Respondent is a qualified diploma holder from R.I.T.E and as 
per notification Ex.DW1/1, the Associate Degree in 
Education (ADE) is given preference in recruitment against 
the post of PST, for the reason that ADE is a two-years 
program whereas the duration of other diplomas is nine 
months or one year. Therefore, it is clear from the outset 
that under recruitment policy, a R.I.T.E diploma holder is to 
Civil Appeal No.173 of 2020 �
6 
be given preference over other candidates. However, it is 
pertinent to note that such preference shall only be given 
when the candidate has equal marks as the other competing 
candidate on merit. Therefore, a distinction must be drawn 
between a R.I.T.E diploma holder who has equal marks as 
other candidates on the merit list and is thereby given 
preference on the basis of his qualification and a RIT.E 
diploma holder who scores significantly lower marks than 
competing candidates. The latter shall not be given 
preference merely by virtue of the diploma. Accordingly, the 
Respondent cannot be given preference over the candidates 
appointed against the respective posts when his overall 
marks were significantly lower than those who were 
appointed on merit. Therefore, we do not find this argument 
to be sustainable. 
8. � With regard to the second argument of the 
Respondent that he should be appointed against the post of 
PST based on the five additional marks for his field 
experience, we are not convinced of the same. It must be 
noted that the marks obtained by the Respondent were 
51.39 and , even if the additional five marks for experience 
were added, his overall mark would be 56.89. On the other 
hand, the candidates who have been appointed against the 
respective posts have obtained 67.832, 58.84, and 58.826 
marks respectively. Therefore, even if the Respondent was 
granted the additional five marks, he would still not have 
similar marks as those of the three candidates who have 
Civil Appeal No.178 of 2020 
been appointed. It must also be noted that the Respondent's 
own witness (DW-2) admitted during cross examination that 
the said policy for granting additional marks for experience 
had yet not been implemented in practice and that only a 
mere proposal regarding it had been circulated. Therefore, in 
the absence of any concrete policy in place, the Respondent 
cannot get any relief on account of his five years of 
experience in the field of education. 
9. � With regard to the final argument of the learned 
counsel for the Respondent that various other candidates 
were given preference and appointed against the posts of 
PST based on the R.I.T,E diploma, therefore a failure to 
grant the same treatment to the Respondent amounts to 
discrimination, we are not persuaded by the same. We note 
that this argument was not made by the Respondent at any 
stage of the case, either before the Civil Judge, the 
Additional District Judge or before the Peshawar High Court. 
Since the Respondent failed to do so and also failed to 
implead the alleged similarly placed candidates, it is not 
possible for us at this point to ascertain whether the 
Respondent was discriminated against. 
10. �It is essential to note that under Section 115 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure (1908), the supervisory 
jurisdiction of the High Court in a civil revision petition is 
purely discretionary and rather limited. However, this Court 
has held on many occasions that such discretion must be 
exercised in a lawful and valid manner on the basis of well 
- 
_C c 
Civil Appeal No.1 78 of 2020 �
8 
entrenched principles of the exercise of such discretion. 
Therefore, the High Court shall not arbitrarily refuse to 
exercise its discretionary powers, rather, it must satisfy itself 
as to whether jurisdiction has been exercised properly and 
whether the proceedings of the subordinate Court suffer 
from any illegality or irregularity. We find that in the present 
case, the Peshawar High Court failed to exercise its revision 
jurisdiction properly in law. 
11. �In light of what has been discussed above, we 
find that none of the grounds on the basis of which the 
Appellant was ordered to appoint the Respondent against 
the post of PST are maintainable, Therefore, the Peshawar 
High Court has seriously erred in law by dismissing the Civil 
Revision Petition filed by the Appellant. Consequently, the 
impugned judgment dated 07.11.2019 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court is set aside and the listed appeal is 
allowed. 
ISLAMABAD, THE 
3rd of February, 2021 
Fizz' 
 AC/* 
NA Approved For Rep