MUMTAZ ALI BOHIO and 24 others vs FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing challenges by unsuccessful candidates of the C.S.S. Competitive Examination, 2000. The petitioners sought to compel the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) to allow them additional attempts and maintain the previous age limits for the 2001 examination, arguing they held vested rights under the Competitive Examination Rules, 2000. The core legal question was whether candidates possess a vested right to be governed by a specific set of recruitment rules for future examinations, and whether the FPSC is prohibited from altering these rules for subsequent years. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that candidates have no vested right to be governed by previous rules for future examinations. The Court affirmed that the FPSC possesses the authority to alter recruitment policies and rules in the public interest before final appointments are made. The key principle laid down is that recruitment rules are subject to change, and subsequent rules supersede former ones; vested rights do not arise merely from participation in previous examinations, as such rights must originate from contracts, statutes, or operation of law.
- Do candidates for the C.S.S. examination possess a vested right to be governed by the rules of a previous year for future examinations?
- Does the Federal Public Service Commission have the authority to alter recruitment rules for the C.S.S. examination in the public interest?
- Can recruitment rules for the C.S.S. examination be changed before the finalization of appointments?
- Do subsequent recruitment rules supersede former rules in the context of the C.S.S. examination?
- Competitive Examination Rules, 2000
- Section 7-A of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977
- Section 10 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977
- Rule 4(i) of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2000
- Rule 8(vi) of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2000
' 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 general 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 two more attempts to clear the examination under the said Rules.
(b) That it 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.
Cited by 28 cases
- Ayesha Maqsood vs KP Public Service Commission & others 2024 PHC 110
- Mst. Naseem Bibi vs District Education Officer (F) Shangla and others 2023 PHC 394
- Waseem Khurshid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 158
- Muhammad Usman and another vs Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2020 PHC 270, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 727
- Qamar Aziz etc vs Government of the Punjab, etc 2019 PLC (C.S) 932, 2018 LHC 2408
- QAMAR AZIZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 2019 PLC(CS) 932
- Muhammad Yousaf Javaid Phapra etc vs Ombudsman Punjab and 121 2017 LHC 4283
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF JAVAID PHAPRA and others vs OMBUDSMAN PUNJAB 2018 PLD Lahore 269, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 109
- ZULFIQAR AHMED Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar 2019 PLC(CS) 721
- Awais Saeed, etc vs Govt. of Punjab, etc. 2017 LHC 2828
- AWAIS SAEED and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 1135
- AWAIS SAEED, etc. vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, etc. 2018 PLC (C.S.) 1135, 2018 PLJ Lahore 79
- Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan & others vs Federation of Pakistan 2017 SHC 248
- MUHAMMAD SOHAIL vs CHAIRMAN NTS and others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 220
- Mst. Riffat Siddique vs District Co-odination Officer, etc. 2014 C.L.R. 1337
- Mst. RIFFAT SIDDIQUE vs DISTRICT CO-ORDINATION OFFICER and others 2015 PLC (C.S.) 279
- Bank Of Punjab vs Accountability Court No. 1, Etc. 2013 P.C.T.L.R. 1159
- BANK OF PUNJAB through Group Head of its Special Projects vs ACCOUNTABILITY COURT NO.1, LAHORE and 2 others 2014 PLD Lahore 92
- AKHTAR KHAN KHATTAK and 3 others vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief 2013 PLC (C.S.) 440
- IMTIAZ AHMED and otherss vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Secretary, Lahore and others 2006 PLD Supreme Court 472
- NAZAKAT ABBAS and 20 others vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2006 PLC (C.S.) 221
- DILAWAR SHAH ROGHANI vs NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE Through Secretary, Works And ServicesDepartment, Government Of N. W.F.P., Peshawar And 2 OTHER 2006 CLC 15
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and otherss vs Miss ANAM ALI BHATTI and others 2004 PLD Lahore 733
- Province of Punjab and others vs Miss. Anam All Bhatti and others 2005 C.L.R. 435
- DILAWAR SHAH ROGHANI, EX-DIRECTOR (LEGAL) PROVINCIAL URBAN 2006 PLJ Peshawar 65
- Dilawar Shah Roghani, Ex-Director (Legal) Provincial Urban Development K.L.R. 2006 Revenue Cases 154
- Muhammad Yousaf Javaid Phapra, etc. vs Ombudsman Punjab and 121 2018 [M] C.L.R. 109
- Muhammad Afzal Majoka & others vs The Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore KPK thr. Chief Secretary, Peshawar & others 2021 KLR Labour & Service Cases 1, 2021 P SC 54