Court warns FPSC of contempt proceedings against non-provision of CSS result to candidate

• Justice Sahibzada Asadullah directed the respondents to provide the result to the appellant as already ordered on the 14th of this month.
• The candidature of the appellant was rejected on the ground of being delayed for one day.
  
• The assistant attorney general was told to ensure the presence of the respondents along with the relevant record on the next date.
  

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued a warning to the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) chairman to either provide the result of the Central Superior Service (CSS) written test to the applicant else face contempt proceedings, The News reported on Thursday.

Maria Yusuf filed an appeal under Section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977, challenging the order that rejected her candidature for the CSS examination for the year 2020.

Read more: Newly-appointed FPSC chairman Zahid Saeed takes oath

The counsel for the appellant contended that his client had sent the application on November 6, last year through registered mail and the last date was November 11.

However, the candidature of the appellant was rejected on the ground of being delayed for one day.

Saleem Shah Hoti Advocate representing the appellant, Maria Yusuf, submitted to the court that the FPSC chairman had committed contempt of court by not complying with the court directives passed at the last hearing.

Read more: CSS Exams 2021: Application form, CSS Rules 2019 and Syllabus for Competitive Exams

Taking notice, Justice Sahibzada Asadullah took exception to the absence of the officials of FPSC Islamabad in the court and their failure to provide CSS result to the appellant despite the court directives on the 14th of this month.

He referred to the court earlier order wherein the FPSC chairman had been directed to declare the CSS result of the appellant.

The judge directed the respondents to provide the result to the appellant as already ordered on the 14th of this month.

The assistant attorney general, who was present in court, was told to ensure the presence of the respondents along with the relevant record on the next date.