MAROOF GILANI Versus PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .---The appellant appeared in the Competitive Examination hold by the federal Public Service Commission in 1986 for appointment to various services under the Federal Government in the basic Pay Scale No. 17. He gave his domicile as Sindh (Rural). He secured fifth position in order of merit among the candidates of the same domicile. While giving his choice for different services he indicated the following order of preference:

(1) Customs and Excise Group.

(2) District Management Group.

(3) Income-tax Group.

Some of the candidates who had the same domicile as the appellant did not join service with the result that he became eligible for appointment to the service of his first choice, namely, 'Customs and Excise'. However, he was not appointed to that service for the reason that the Federal Public Service Commission declared him unfit for that service. On the other hand, he was offered an appointment in the Income-tax group. His representation to the Government for appointment to the Customs and Excise service failed. He then filed a Constitution petition in the High Court. This too was dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the scope of the authority of the Federal Public Service Commission in allocation and re-allocation of the services to the candidates who qualify in CSS Examination.

3. It may be mentioned that paragraph 14 of the prospectus for the examination clearly stated that the Government had the right to allocate a candidate against any Group/Service irrespective of his or her preferences, in public interest, and that no appeal against the decision of the Government in this regard was entertainable. As already indicated, the Federal Public Service commission found the appellant unsuitable for appointment to the 'Customs and Excise' Group. The decision of the Government not to appoint him to the said group was based upon the advice tendered to it by the Commissioner which had examined him both orally and through a written test. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Government's decision was arbitrary or whimsical. The appellant has not been able to show that the Federal Public Service Commission was motivated by an ulterior consideration when it declared him unsuitable for the service of his first choice. We therefore do not think that this is a fit case for I interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.

A.A./M-3024/S Appeal dismissed.