MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others vs FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISISON
This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court challenging the vires of the rules framed by the respondents, specifically the modification of the age limit for candidates appearing in the Central Superior Services (C.S.S.) Examination from 30 to 28 years and 35 to 30 years. The core legal question was whether the High Court can interfere with or strike down policy rules framed by the executive regarding age limits on the grounds of hardship or alleged violation of vested rights. The Court held that the respondents possess the lawful authority to frame and amend rules, and the judiciary cannot assume the role of a policy maker, legislature, or rule-making authority under the guise of interpretation, nor can it strike down rules merely because they are harsh. The key principle laid down is that rule-making authorities have the prerogative to amend service rules, and courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with such policy decisions or substitute their own judgment for that of the competent authority.
- Whether a candidate acquires a vested right to appear in an examination under unamended rules when the rule-making authority modifies the age limit?
- Can the High Court strike down service rules framed by the executive merely on the ground that the rules are harsh?
- Does the judiciary have the jurisdiction to assume the role of a rule-making authority or policy maker in the garb of legal interpretation?
- Article 25, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' The petitioner has challenged the vires of the rules framed by the respondents through this Constitutional petition whereby the age limit for the candidate for admission of C.S.S. Examination haq been modified/changed from 30 years to 28 years and 35 to 30 years respectively by the respondent.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner had initiated preparation to appear in the examination but all of a sudden the respondents had amended the rule. The petitioner had secured vested right to appear on the basis of the old rules. He further submits that respondents framed the rules in violation of the Article 25 of the Constitution. He further urges that respondents have no lawful authority to amend the earlier rules in derogation of the rights of the petitioner. He summed up his arguments that rules are very harsh.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. It is settled principle of law that this Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law as per principle laid down by the Honourable A Supreme Court in the following judgments: ' The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49).
' Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473).
' This Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker or to take the role of the Legislature or to take the role of rule-making authority in the garb of interpretation. The respondents have lawful B authority to frame the rules and this Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the rule-making authority. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:-- ' Government of Pakistan v. Zamir Ahmad Khan (PLD 1975 SC 667).
' Zamir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Pakistan and another (1978 SCM R 327).
' The question of law has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Federation of Pakistan v. Mirza Muhammad Irfan Baig and 4 others (1992 SCM R 2430). In case the rules are harsh even then this Court has no jurisdiction to strike down the rules as per principles laid down in Samad Khan's case (1993 M LD 726).
5. In view of what has been discussed above, writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is well within his right to avail the proper remedy under the law before the competent authority for relaxation of age.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.
Cited by 9 cases
- Messrs SHAHEEN COTTON MILLS, LAHORE and another vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE through Secretary and another 2011 PLD Lahore 120
- REHMAT FILLING STATION through Proprietor vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 2004 MLD 1372
- 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
- Muhammad Ramzan And 3 Other vs Government Of Pakistan And 3 Other K.L.R. 2005 Civil Cases 181
- Muhammad Ramzan & 3 others vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad & 3 others 2004 C.L.R. 1474
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 3 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others 2004 YLR 1856
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and 9 others vs Miss ANAM ALI BHATTI and 3 others 2005 PLJ Lahore 168
- M/s. SHAHEEN COTTON MILLS, LAHORE and another vs FEDERATION OF 2011 PLJ Lahore 256