drupal analytics

December 21, 2014

2 Year Experience for Judicial Exams in Pakistan is Unfair

Recently Punjab Public Service Commission PPSC announced seats for Addition District Public Prosecutor ADPP and one of the requirements for candidates is that person must have two year experience as an advocate.
The restriction of 2 year experience was imposed some year before and basic purpose or logic behind this clause is that applying candidate’s experience helps him to perform his duties in job. This restriction was also imposed on Civil Judges examination. But we have to check that if this clause is serving well and really benefiting or causing harm to candidates.
The basic purpose behind this 2 year experience clause is that when candidate works as an advocate in courts for two years he can efficiently perform his duties as a civil judge or as ADPP. But most of the candidates who appeared in such examination even not bothered to go to the courts for practicing as advocate and prefer to join some academy or prepare themselves for written examination at home.
Those candidates who regularly come to the courts in those two years fail to get proper experience due to lack of opportunities. Another disadvantage for such candidates is that most of them fail in such examination because they fail to pass written examination due to lack of time. Passing a written competitive examination of judiciary or ADPP is something different which requires lot of time instead of practicing in courts.


The ultimate losers are those candidates who passed their law graduation but not able to sit in examination due to this illogical and unjust eligibility criteria. Competitive examination like CSS, PMS, Judicial examination and ADPP mean providing equal opportunity to all to complete. In case of judiciary and ADPP this limitation of two years is against the spirit of competition examination and even against the fundamental right because of discrimination. Due to this unjust condition many able candidates cannot sit in the examination. If this is competition then let every law graduate compete for it.
Now let us talk about another recent development. The exam of ADPP was conducted last year and hundreds of seats were filled, now within one year another exam of ADPP is announced and again hundreds of seats will be filled. After this almost all vacant seats will be filled and there is no prospect of again announcement of ADPP in years to come. Now what is the fault of those law graduates who are even not allowed to sit in exam due to this experience limitation?
Similarly last year High Court Lahore conducted the exams of civil judges and filled almost 225 seats. Now again hundreds of seats are about to be announced but with this draconian limitation of two year experience. Again this is discrimination against those unfortunate law graduates candidates who were barred in last exam due to this experience clause and if High Court again announces vacancies of civil judges whiting month or two with experience clause as expected it will be again big loss for those candidates. They will get their next chance after some years because all seats of civil judges will be filled and next announcement will not come in coming years or even if it comes it will be for limited number of seats. What is the fault of those aspirants who want to compete but not allowed?
Hence this restriction of 2 year experience is not serving for the purpose for which it is introduced but causing harm to those able and willing law graduates who cannot even sit in the exam due to this restriction. Civil judge exam in Pakistan is important part of Judicial system of Pakistan. This 2 year experience limitation is against the spirit of competitive exams in Pakistan. Highest competitive exam in Pakistan is CSS but it does not require any experience.

Comments

  1. Athar Khan says:

    i do not agree. the two year experience should have always been there before a law knowing person may enter in to the examination for Judiciary as a Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate.

    • Administrator says:

      @athar khan
      the real purpose behind this limitation was that practicing lawyers should be civil judges but it failed. now a days you can get the license of High Court while sitting at home or doing some other job hence it is useless now and only harmful for some competent student.

    • Mazhar Javeed says:

      I think 1 year is enough.

  2. Imran Khan Advocate says:

    hey …. is 2 year experience as an advocate necessary for appearing in civil judge judicial megistrate examz 2012 ??? do tel me about this information . I have heard from some source that it is not implementing on next exams . thnxx . waiting for reply

    • @imran
      so for we dont have any information regarding this issue
      it is stills 2 years cause recently for ADPP they also ask for 2 year experience

  3. plz sir tell me about adpp exam2012 in which date they held i am thankfull to you.

  4. Ghulam Umar Rajput says:

    i took highest marks in Sindh in Law test for the post of Civil Judge …but viva-voice result astonished me….

    i have filed this petition in HC … whether…. i would succeed to get the optimal result of viva-voice ? Petition is referred here in below

    CONSTITUTION PETITION U/A 199 OF THE CONSTITUION
    OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973

    The petitioner above named humbly begs to submit as under:-

    1/- That the petitioner is a practicing advocate of High Court having been enrolled with Sindh Bar Council under enrollment No.772-HC/KHP since 21-4-2006 as advocate of Sub-Ordinate Courts and since 26-07-2011, as an advocate of High Court.

    2/- That the High Court of Sindh vide press advertisement No.Gaz/VI-A,37(A)(3)/ Dated 04-10-2011, Published in Daily Dawn dated 07-10-2011, invited applications for appointment as Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrates BS-18. The advertisement contained following criteria for selection process:-
    “The candidates securing minimum 50% marks in the preliminary test of M.C.Qs will be eligible for the 2nd written test and the candidates securing minimum 50% marks in the written test will be eligible for the interview.”
    The Copy of the advertisement is submitted herewith as Annexure “P-1”.

    3/- That the petitioner fulfilling the requirements applied for referred post of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate BS-18, and after acceptance of his candidature, the petitioner was called for a preliminary test (MCQs. Test) held on 5th August, 2012, under Roll No.370.
    The copy of call letter is submitted as Annexure “P-2”.

    4/- That the three step process for selection/recommendation of names of eligible candidates for appointment as Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate (BS-18) has been completed on 14-12-2012, by the announcement of final result after Viva Voce wherein the names of 44 candidates have been declared as successful and now the notification is pending to be issued by the Government of Sindh. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the list of 44 successful candidates.
    The copy of Viva Voce result is submitted as Annexure “P-3”.

    5/- That the purpose of filing of the present petition is, that the petitioner is feeling aggrieved of the illegalities, discriminations ambiguities and material irregularities in the selection process. The contentions of the petitioner in the present petition are as follows:-

    a) The process of selection was not fair and transparent specifically during the announcement of the result of 1st preliminary test.

    b) That undue favour has been extended to particular candidates on account of influence, nepotism, favoritism and for other extraneous considerations in technical and disguised manner.

    c) The third and last phase of the selection process viz. Interview/Viva Voce was entirely vague, not transparent, illogical and inconsistent with the result of first two tests, thereby, virtually making the first two tests redundant, meaningless and of no optimal value. The procedure adopted is clearly against the rules of assessment of merit.

    d) The result of the interview in the shape of marking (marks) has not been announced like the first two tests viz. MCQs. and Written/Theoretical Tests of the same selection process.
    e) The non-announcement / declaration of the marks of the interview in respect of successful and failure candidates has rendered the entire selection process vague, doubtful, un-transparent, unjust, unfair, improper and defective.

    f) A considerable number of seats have been left to remain vacant and only 44 candidates have been recommended as successful. It is pertinent to submit here that initially 64 seats were unofficially announced as vacant and 64 candidates were expected to be selected. The number of vacant seats may be still greater than 64.

    g) There is no waiting list compiled and announced / appended with the result of Viva Voce which is a sine qua non for every transparent selection process.

    h) The discrete inquiry may reveal still much more instances of nepotism and favoritism technically extended to actually ineligible candidates and discarding/depriving actually eligible candidates in the process of selection in total disregard of merit.

    6/- That the petitioner under Roll No. 370 and 1190 other candidates appeared in the preliminary test at Karachi on 05-08-2012, conducted by NTS. The petitioner was assigned Pink Colour Question Paper with Serial/Book No. 40029. The petitioner passed this preliminary test with 56 marks and then after, the petitioner appeared in the second Written/Theoretical Test and passed it with First Position by securing highest 78 marks.
    The copy of written test result is submitted as Annexure “P-4” and copies of written test call letter and interview call letter are submitted as Annexure “P-5 and P-6” respectively.

    7/- That as for as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned the following disguised, ambiguous and technical mal practices have been committed by the NTS authorities/administration:-
    a) On 05-08-2012, preliminary test was conducted by National Testing Service (NTS), an autonomous corporate body by offering 100 multiple choice questions (MCQs) contained in question papers of five different colours viz. Pink, Green, Yellow, White and Blue. All the 100 questions were same in the question papers of each colour but the sequence of these questions was different in each colour of the question papers.
    b) The NTS uploaded the first self-assessment key on Internet on 08-08-2012, after three days, while as per the previous practice and instances; the NTS used to upload self-assessment key on the very same day of the test immediately after the test time becomes over.
    c) According to first self assessment key, the petitioner compared his result with reference to first uploaded self assessment key and found to have secured 55% marks against 55 correct answers out of 100 MCQs.
    The copy of answer key of the petitioner is submitted as Annexure “P-7”.
    d) The NTS authorities after two days viz. on 10-08-2012 uploaded another self assessment key on the internet by removing the first one. In the second self assessment key, the NTS cancelled Question No.3 of the Pink Question Paper and awarded one general mark to all the candidates. The petitioner thus was shown to have scored 56% as he had attempted wrong answer to the Question No.3 of Pink Question Paper. Here petitioner reserves his right to assail this methodology of awarding general mark by NTS to every candidate against a cancelled question.
    e) Again after two days the NTS authorities on 12-08-2012 uploaded another third self assessment key on the internet by removing the second one. In the third self assessment key, the NTS cancelled Question No.31 besides Question No.3 of the Pink Question Paper and awarded one more general mark to all the candidates. The petitioner was shown to have scored same 56 marks as he had attempted correct answer to the Question No.31 of Pink Question Paper as per the first self assessment key. Here petitioner has his right to assail this methodology of cancellation of a question and award of general mark to every candidate.
    f) Again on the next day the NTS authorities on 13-08-2012 uploaded another viz. fourth self assessment key on the internet by removing the third one. In the fourth self assessment key, the NTS cancelled Question No.44 besides Question No.3 and Question No. 31 of the Pink Question Paper and awarded one more general mark to all the candidates. The petitioner was shown to have scored same 56 marks as he had attempted correct answer to the Question No. 44 of Pink Question Paper as per the first self assessment key. Here petitioner has his right to assail this methodology of cancellation of a question and award of general mark to every candidate.
    g) Again after two days, the NTS authorities on 15-08-2012 uploaded yet another viz. fifth self assessment key on the internet by removing the fourth one. In the fifth self assessment key, the NTS cancelled Question No.51 besides Question No.3, 31 and Question No. 44 of the Pink Question Paper and awarded one more general mark to all the candidates. The petitioner was shown to have scored same 56 marks as he had attempted correct answer to the Question No.51 of Pink Question Paper as per the first self assessment key. Here petitioner has his right to assail this methodology of cancellation of a question and award of general mark to every candidate.

    8/- That accordingly, the NTS authorities uploaded five different self assessment keys in each of the five colours for one and same single test after continual gap of average 2 days’. The possible inference of this act is to accommodate some favorites or to oblige the persons approaching NTS in this run for some extraneous considerations.
    The copies of lastly uploaded answer key of five colours are submitted as “P-8” to “P-12”.

    9/- That this method of extending four (04) general marks to every candidate against these four cancelled questions (purportedly), has rendered the very basic exercise as defective, disbalanced, dubious and illegal. It is not uniform concession because some of the candidates availed the benefit of all the four marks and some of the candidates received the benefit of only one or only two or only three marks. Even otherwise to award a general mark against a cancelled question on account of its being wrong/uncertain/ambiguous etc. is illogical and illegal as it directly disturbed the percentage ratio of the marks of candidates.

    10/- That if there was a case of later detection of any question to be wrong/ uncertain/anomalous/ambiguous etc, the right and proper method for the NTS to be adopted was to simply cancel that question and distribute its one mark to all remaining questions by equaling the marks of reduced number of questions to 100 marks viz. 99 questions=100 marks; 98 questions=100 marks; 97 questions=100 marks or 96 questions=100 marks with 1.04 marks to every question. By this methodology the percentage ratio of the marks of the candidates would have not changed. The anomalous effect can better be understood by perusing the following two examples:

    EXAMPLE NO.1
    According to first self assessment key, there were 90 candidates who had secured the marks in Preliminary Test in between 46 and 49 viz. one mark for each correct answer, WHILE;
    According to last self assessment key, there were only 58 candidates who had secured the marks in Preliminary Test in between 50 and 53, while the remaining 32 candidates were declared fail in the preliminary test.
    Among these 58 candidates some had secured 46 marks; some had secured 47 marks; some had secured 48 marks; some had secured 49 marks; some had secured 50 marks; some had secured 51 marks; some had secured 52 marks and some had secured 53 marks in the first self assessment key of the preliminary test.
    Similarly among the remaining 32 failed candidates of above mentioned 90 candidates, there must be the some candidates who had already secured 46 marks; some had already secured 47 marks; some had already secured 48 marks and some had already secured 49 marks.
    Now here is discrimination and anomaly, that the two candidates who had secured equal marks either 46 or 47 or 48 or 49 according to first self assessment key but in the last assessment key some of them received the bonus of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 general marks while the others could not get this benefit as they had already attempted the correct answer of the cancelled questions.

    EXAMPLE NO. 2
    Now let us see the other way around if the NTS had not intended to benefit a particular ineligible candidate and nor it had to show any intention for discriminating between the candidate and candidate; they must have adopted the right methodology of canceling these four questions thereby reducing the total number of questions to 96 questions and distributing the four marks of cancelled questions to these 96 questions. If this would have been the case there would have been 1.04 marks for every correct question and the candidates attempting less than 48 correct questions would have not qualified for second theoretical/subjective test. In this case the candidates with 47 and 46 correct questions / marks would have had not passed the preliminary test with required 50% marks. In this context the candidates with Roll No. 1055, 127, 834, 985, 507, 218, 88, 840, 394, 684, 252, 72, 670, 991, 409, 893, 1012, 1037, 295, 73 and 458 (21 candidates shown to have secured the marks between 50 and 51as per the last fifth Self Assessment Key) would have not been declared to have had qualified the preliminary test as after deducting 04 marks from their declared marks; they seem to have attempted either 46 or 47 correct questions.
    The NTS authorities have created yet another anomaly and ambiguity by awarding 0/0 marks to some candidates bearing Roll No.145, 521 etc. etc.

    11/- That from the above examples, it comes to be a proven fact that material illegalities have been committed by NTS authorities in compilation of the result of Preliminary MCQs. Test, which was a foundation for the selection of Civil Judges/JMs. When the foundation is illegal, then the entire edifice built on it becomes illegal. The process of selection has become vitiated and is required to be declared as null and void in the light of judicial principles and to uphold the glory of justice.

    12/- That undue favour has been extended to particular candidates on account of influence, nepotism, favoritism and for other extraneous considerations in technical and disguised manner.

    13/- That the third and last phase of the selection process viz. Interview/Viva Voce was entirely vague, not transparent, illogical and inconsistent with the result of first two tests, thereby, virtually making the first two tests redundant, meaningless and of no optimal value. The procedure adopted is clearly against the rules of assessment of merit.

    14/- That the result of the interview in the shape of marking (marks) has not been announced like the first two tests viz. MCQs. and Written/Theoretical Tests of the same selection process.

    15/- That the non-announcement / declaration of the marks of the interview in respect of successful and failure candidates has rendered the entire selection process vague, doubtful, un-transparent, unjust, unfair, improper and defective.

    16/- That the number of vacant seats has not been announced throughout and as per some relevant sources, considerable number of seats has been left to remain vacant and only 44 candidates have been recommended as successful. It is pertinent to submit here, that initially 64 seats were unofficially announced as vacant and 64 candidates were expected to be selected. The number of vacant seats may be still greater than 64.

    17/- That there is no waiting list compiled and announced / appended with the result of Viva Voce which is a sine qua non for every transparent selection process.

    18/- That many eligible candidates have been discarded unjustly and many ineligible candidates have been selected unjustly and unfairly.

    19/- That there was no description marks of the interview and its subjects or modus operandi or modus vivindi of the interview as to its requirements by making the candidates already prepared regarding their fitness or appearance etc.

    20/- That the Respondents act of treating the Petitioner discriminately is against the provisions of constitution as provided under article 4, 9, 25 and 37 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

    20/- That the Petitioner earned a right to be appointed on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the previous two tests of the selection process as the candidates with lesser marks have been selected for appointment to the same post.

    21/- That in the existing circumstances of the case, the petitioner has got no other adequate, efficacious and speedy remedy except to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court.
    ¬
    22/- That no petition of like nature has been filed by the petitioner prior to the present one.

    23/- That the petition is properly stamped.

    24/- That in the light of above submissions, the petitioner prays for judgment of this Hon’ble Court as under:-

    P R A Y E R

    A) This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to declare that the award of 04 general marks by NTS authorities to all the candidates who appeared in the Preliminary Test dated 05th August, 2012, for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (BS-18), is illegal, void ab initio and against the rules of transparency and merit.
    B) This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to cancel the Viva Voce result dated 14-12-2012, thereby declaring that the entire process of selection of Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates (B-18) based upon Preliminary Test held on 05-08-2012 conducted by NTS is void and illegal.
    C) That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass appropriate order for re-advertisement of the posts of Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates (B-18) under High Court of Sindh through a fair, transparent and fool proof selection process to ensure the sole consideration of merit, thereby allowing the petitioner to appear and contest for the said post with remission in his age, if the question so arises.
    D) To direct the respondents to issue the necessary Notification/ Corrigendum for stopping, ending, terminating and reversing back the process of recruitment against these posts with reference to the Advertisement No. No.Gaz/VI-A,37(A)(3)/Dated 04-10-2011, Published in Daily Dawn dated 07-10-2011.
    E) To award any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of present petition.
    Date: 24-12-2012

    ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

Speak Your Mind

*