MUMTAZ ALI BOHIO & 24 Other vs FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION"
The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates in the C.S.S. Competitive Examination of 2000, challenged the Federal Public Service Commission's decision to lower the upper age limit and restrict attempts for the 2001 examination. They argued that the Competitive Examination Rules, 2000, created vested rights allowing them to make further attempts under the previous criteria, and that new rules could not be applied retrospectively. The High Court dismissed their petition, holding that the rules for the 2000 examination did not govern subsequent years and that candidates possess no vested right to be governed by a specific set of rules. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that the Federal Public Service Commission has the authority to alter recruitment policies in the public interest before appointments are finalized. The Court held that vested rights arise from contracts, statutes, or operation of law, none of which applied here. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Commission's updated rules supersede previous ones, and candidates cannot claim a right to appear under expired examination regulations.
- Do candidates for a competitive examination possess a vested right to be governed by the rules in force at the time of their previous attempts?
- Can the Federal Public Service Commission alter recruitment rules for competitive examinations in the public interest?
- Do rules governing a specific year's competitive examination automatically apply to subsequent years?
- Section 7-A, Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977
- Section 10, Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.-- The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 24.10.2001 of a learned Division Bench, High Court of Sindh, whereby Civil Petitions Nos. 1207 and 1430 of 2001 were dismissed in limine.
2. The petitioners are unsuccessful candidates of the C.S.S. Competitive Examination, 2000 held by the Federal Public Service Commission in November, 2000 for recruitment to the post of BS-17 in various groups/services of the Federal Government. They were governed by the Competitive Examination Rules, 2000 made by the respondent No.. 1, Federal Public Service Commission in pursuance of Section 7-A read with Section 10 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977. According to Rule 4(i) of the above Rules, the qualifying age limit for the candidates was from 21 to 30 years. Rule 8(vi) of the above Rules, provided that a candidate could clear the examination in three attempts.
3. On 12.7.2000 the National Security Council of the Federation of Pakistan on the recommendations of respondent No. 1 decided to lower upper age limit for C.S.S. Examination from 30 to 28 years for genera! Candidates and from 35 to 30 years for Government servants from 33 to 30 years for the candidates related to backward areas. The petitioners in their petition before High Court prayed for the following reliefs: "(a) That it be declared that the C.S.S. Competitive Examination 'Rules, 2000 are applicable to the case of the petitioner who will be allowed one or to more ' attempts to clear the examination under the said Rules.
(b) That it is be declared that the new Rules cannot be implemented with retrospective effect in the case of the petitioners who have already made the first and second attempts under the old Rules.
(c) That the respondent No. 1 be directed to issue Examination Forms to the petitioners for the Competitive Examination, 2001 and allow them to make extra attempts to clear the examination as per Rules, 2000.
(d) That any other relief deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be granted."
4. It was argued before High Court that the petitioners had acquired vested rights to make successive attempts in the aforesaid examination subject to maximum age limit as prescribed under the Examination Rules, 2000. Further, it was contended before High Court that the proposed rules for the year 2001 could not be given retrospective effect so as to affect the vested rights of the petitioners. Dealing with above contentions learned High Court reached the conclusion that Examination Rules of 2000 only applied to the examination conducted in that year and that the candidates for the examination to be held in year 2001 would be governed by the Rules prescribed for said year. Learned High Court also held that the petitioners had no vested right to appear in Competitive Examination of 2001 invoking the Rules of 2000.
5. It appears from the comments of respondent No. 1 filed before High Court that the Rules of.2001 were not till then notified when the petition was filed before High Court. High Court, however, examined the case of the petitioners assuming that the "proposed amendments" have been incorporated in the Rules of 2001.
6. Neither the competency of respondent No. 1 to change the rules in public interest could be challenged nor any candidate has vested right to be governed by any particular set of Rules. It is within the domain of respondent No, 1 to make any alteration in the recruitment policy before finalization of the appointments. If the rules are altered/changed, the latter rules will supersede the former. Vested rights originate from contracts, statutes, and by operation of law. None of the above conditions is attracted to this case. The Rules of 2000 could not be invoked for the examination to be held in the year 2001, when the rules of latter year were available. The order of High Court is perfectly correct and no interference is warranted.
7. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.