ISLAMABAD, Sept 6: The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi bench, has set aside the Federal Public Service Commission’s objections and restored the candidature of appellant, Mohammad Asad Ali Chaudhry, for CSS examination, 2000.

The LHC, in its recent judgment, has directed the commission to announce the result of the appellant and, if required, amend the list of candidates finally selected in the CSS-2000 and allocate a service group as per his entitlement on the basis of his merit position.

It may be mentioned here that it is the third judgment in continuation passed by the LHC on the case. However, this time the court has accepted the appeal of the appellant.

Mr Asad had taken his CSS-2000 examination and was declared successful in his written exam.

He was subsequently called for psychological test and viva voice for the final allocation in a certain service group. But, to Mr Asad’s surprise, instead of receiving the final result, he was informed by the commission through a telegram that his candidature had been cancelled on the pretext that he had retired prematurely from the army.

Contesting the decision, Mr Asad challenged the decision in the court and the petition was remitted to the commission to review its decision, considering the documentary proofs provided by the appellant that a number of other candidates with the same background had been selected by the commission.

In the first judgment, dated March 18, 2002, the high court directed the commission to review the petition of Mr Asad within one month of the date of receipt of the order in which he contested cancellation of his candidature for CSS-2000, but the commission did not respond to the LHC’s directives.

Subsequently, he moved the high court for contempt proceedings against respondents (Mr Shafiqur Rehman, Chairman, FPSC and others).

The Lahore High Court, headed by Justice Mohammad Sayed Akhtar, in its second judgment on July 4, 2002, observed: “Since the course (CSS-2000) has already started and it appears to be the case of hardships, the petition is remitted to the commission which treated as a review petition within the FPSC Ordinance 1977 and the commission is directed to dispose of the review petition after hearing the appellant within 10 days, positively”.

As a result, the commission called Mr Asad for personal hearing but even after the expiry of the deadline on July 15, the commission did not respond.

Once again the appellant prayed to the court to accept his appeal and in response the court gave its judgment in favour of Mr Asad.