PESHAWAR: A Peshawar High Court bench on Thursday dismissed 34 writ petitions filed by several candidates seeking grace marks or rechecking of their papers in the recently conducted examination of civil judges-cum-judicial magistrates by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission.

Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Ikramullah Khan had reserved its judgment few days ago after completion of arguments by all the parties and pronounced its order of turning down the plea of all the petitioners.

The petitioners including Saqibullah, Naveed Anjum and others have put forward different prayers in their respective petitions.

Some of the petitioners have stated that under the rules up to five grace marks could be given in Public Service Commission examinations in a particular subject.

They had stated that while they had cleared the exams if the aggregate marks were considered, there were failed in a subject.

Some of the petitioners were declared failed in aggregate while they had cleared the papers and had requested that they should be given grace marks in aggregate.

Additional advocate general Omar Farooq Adam had represented the provincial government and had stated that the Supreme Court in one of its judgment had ruled that no grace marks should be given to candidates in examinations conducted for filling posts of judges.

He had stated that in the light of the said judgment of the apex court the petitioners could not be awarded grace marks.

COMMENTS SOUGHT: A bench comprising Justice Nisar Hussain and Justice Mussarat Hilali on Thursday sought comments from provincial home department and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial police officer (PPO) over a writ petition filed by a former senior superintendent of police (SSP) Counter Terrorism Department seeking extension in his service.

Advocate Ameenur Rehman appeared for petitioner Amjid Khan and contended that his client was a former officer of Pakistan Army and few years ago after his retirement he was appointed on contract basis as SSP Counter Terrorism department.

He added that during his service his performance was up to the mark.

The lawyer said after completion of his contract period, the high-ups had declined to further extend his contract.

He added that under the rules, extension in service could be given to him up to five years if he had not attained the age of 60 years.

The lawyer added that on merit, the petitioner deserved to be given extension in service.

Published in Dawn, October 14th, 2016