Summary: Allocation of Seats on zonal basis of KPK Public Service Commission is on merit, method was thoroughly discussed.

Summary: In case of non-joiner of the recommendee of Public Service Commission, the next in merit shall be offered the Post

Summary: Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977.Representation of petitioner was rejected by the competent forum of F.P.S.C filed U/S.7(3)(a) Ordinance, 1977, on 26.11.2007. Petitioner was legally required to have filed appeal within 30 days against the above decision U/S.7(3)(d) of ibid law before High Court which he failed. Petitioner filed instant petition on 24.01.2009 after delay of more than two years without availing efficacious remedy U/S.7(3)(d) of ibid law, so petition is hit by laches and is not maintainable.

Summary: The petitioners, serving as Inspectors/Senior Patrol Officers, challenged disciplinary actions taken against them, alleging violations of their constitutional and legal rights. Petitioner No. 1 was penalized with a reduction in rank, while Petitioner No. 2 was dismissed from service. Both petitioners filed appeals with the Federal Service Tribunal (FST); Petitioner No. 1's appeal was allowed, while Petitioner No. 2's appeal remained pending due to the non-functioning of the FST. The petitioners contested their subsequent transfer orders issued on 14.4.2014, alleging that these actions violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC). They also argued that the orders were arbitrary and failed to consider their personal circumstances, including family dependencies. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Does the issuance of transfer orders on disciplinary grounds constitute double jeopardy? ------- 2) Can the transfer orders be deemed arbitrary or unlawful in the absence of malafide intent or illegality? ------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Double Jeopardy Misconception: The court held that the principle of double jeopardy does not apply in this case. The earlier and present disciplinary actions were based on distinct charge sheets: Earlier charges included granting unauthorized permission to a private individual and receiving fines while off duty. The current charges alleged involvement in corrupt practices and substandard performance. As the allegations in the respective charge sheets were separate, the argument of double jeopardy was found to be misconceived. ------- Transfer Orders: The court stated that transfers and postings are routine executive matters and cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction unless there is evidence of glaring malafide intent or illegality. In this case, no such evidence was presented. ------- Outcome: The petition was dismissed in limine as it lacked merit. ------- Citations/Precedents: Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan: Protection against double jeopardy. Section 403 Cr.PC: Prohibition of prosecution for the same offense.

Summary: Petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to set aside an order and direct the Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission to recommend his appointment as Assistant Director Intelligence Bureau (BPS-17). During the arguments, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It was pointed out that the petitioner had failed to approach the relevant statutory forums provided under Clauses (b) and (d) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977. These clauses provide for a review petition to be filed with the respondent No.1 and, if dissatisfied with the decision on representation, an appeal to the High Court. The High Court held that the petitioner should have availed the remedy provided under the aforementioned clauses of the ordinance. Since the petitioner did not file a review petition or an appeal to the High Court, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.

Summary: Non acceptance of post offered to a candidate higher to the petitioner on the merit list---Federal Public Service Commission Rules for (CSS) Competitive Examination, 2009-------R. 7---Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977), S.7(3)---CivilProcedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutionalpetition---Central Civil Services (CSS) Examination---Non-acceptance of post offered to acandidate senior than petitioner on merit list ---Petitioner, being next successful candidate inCSS examination, was to be offered such post, but the Authority carried forward suchvacancy to the next examination---Validity---Petitioner had neither passed Common TrainingProgram nor approached the High Court upon learning about carrying forward of such postnor explained delay of about five months in approaching the High Court ---Petitioner had notexplained as to why he failed to implead six candidates having prayed to be arrayed asrespondents---Such six candidates had legitimate expectance to be selected to such postcarried forward, thus, they ought to have been impleaded as parties ---Result of such sixcandidates had been published in newspaper before filing of such petition by petitioner ---Impugned order was not illegal or unlawful ---High Court dismissed constitutional petition incircumstances.Mazhar Ilyas Nagi for Petitioner.Malik Sikandar Khan, D.A.-G. along with intervenors Messrs Liaquat Ali, Aminullah andAbdul Wali Khan for Respondents.

Summary: Appeal U/s 7(3)(d) of FPSC Ordinance. Revision and representation have been dismissed. --- (a) Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 (XLV of 1977) ----S. 7(3)(d)—Appeal against rejection of candidature—Scope of judicial interference. Under S. 7(3)(d) of the FPSC Ordinance, 1977, an appeal lies only where the impugned decision of the Commission is shown to be arbitrary or contrary to its own rules. The High Court held that where a candidate’s rejection is based on explicit non-compliance with procedural requirements prescribed in the Public Notice and Competitive Examination Rules, interference is unwarranted. Failure to submit the required hardcopy of the online application within the stipulated time rendered the rejection lawful. (b) CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 ----Rr. 11(3) & (4), 16(6)—Submission of hardcopy of application—Mandatory nature—Effect of default. The Rules unequivocally require that a duly-signed hardcopy of the online application and supporting documents reach the Commission by the prescribed deadline; late submissions are not acceptable and entail rejection of candidature. The Court observed that the petitioner, by accepting the declaration in Para 28(d) of the application, had bound himself to these rules. Under R. 16(6), the result of a rejected candidate cannot be declared even if he appeared in the examination provisionally “at his own risk.” (c) Administrative law ----Doctrine of estoppel—Candidate bound by declared undertaking. A candidate who accepts examination rules and conditions cannot later plead hardship or seek relaxation on equitable grounds. The FPSC’s adherence to uniform deadlines ensures transparency and equality among candidates; deviation in one case would compromise the integrity of the competitive process. Disposition Appeal dismissed. No illegality or arbitrariness found in the FPSC’s decision rejecting candidature for failure to submit the hardcopy application within the prescribed time. Citation: Muhammad Babar Mumtaz v. Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) through Chairman & others, CMA No. 25 of 2025, decided on 30 April 2025, per Muhammad Asif, J.—Islamabad High Court.

Summary: (a) Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977---- ----S. 7(3)(b) & (d)---Alternate remedies---Review petition and appeal—Maintainability of writ petition—Petitioner’s representation against CSS 2022 result dismissed due to absence—Held, petitioner had statutory remedies of review before the Commission and appeal thereafter before the High Court under s.7(3)(b) & (d) of the Ordinance, 1977—Having failed to avail those remedies within limitation, writ petition under Art.199 of the Constitution was not maintainable. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199—Judicial review—Disputed questions of fact—Petitioner claimed inability to attend representation hearing due to traffic blockage—Held, such factual controversy requiring evidence cannot be adjudicated in Constitutional jurisdiction—Petition therefore not maintainable. (c) Civil service examinations---- ----CSS Competitive Examination, 2019 Rules, r.17(1)—Representation against marks—Rejection due to non-appearance—Held, representation properly dismissed in accordance with prescribed procedure—Petitioner’s non-attendance constituted failure to prosecute remedy available under rules. (d) Administrative law---- ----Finality of proceedings—CSS 2022 result already finalized and allocations made—Matter held to be past and closed transaction—No interference warranted. Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable; Impugned Memorandum dated 04.07.2023 upheld.

Summary: (a) Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977--- ----S.7(3)(a)-(d)---Representation, review and appeal---Scope---Petitioner, a candidate for CSS Competitive Examination-2024, challenged rejection of her candidature and dismissal of representation by Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC)---Held, under S.7(3) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, a complete statutory mechanism exists providing first for representation before the Commission, then review petition, and thereafter an appeal to the High Court against the review decision---Petitioner, without availing statutory remedy of review before the Commission, directly invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Such petition, in presence of an alternate efficacious remedy, is not maintainable. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--- ----Art.199---Writ jurisdiction---Exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction where adequate statutory remedy exists---Principle---Where a special law provides its own remedy, parties are required to pursue that statutory forum instead of directly invoking constitutional jurisdiction---High Court’s jurisdiction under Art.199 is discretionary and to be exercised only in absence of any adequate or efficacious alternative remedy---Reference made to Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazal Zada (PLD 1996 SC 246) and Indus Trading and Contracting Co. v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi (2016 SCMR 842). (c) Administrative law--- ----Maintainability of constitutional petition---Availability of alternative remedy---Effect---Petition challenging rejection of candidature by FPSC held not maintainable in view of unavailed review remedy under special statute---High Court declined to entertain petition in constitutional jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) Writ of quo warranto—Maintainability—Petitioners, appointed through Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) in 2012, challenged the status of respondents who had been initially appointed on contract basis in 2007 and later regularized through a Cabinet Sub-Committee in 2012—Held, writ of quo warranto is inquisitorial, can be initiated by any person in public interest, and is not barred by delay—Laches do not apply rigidly to quo warranto proceedings as cause of action is recurring in nature while the impugned public office is held—Petition was maintainable despite lapse of time and despite respondents holding office for several years. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 212 Bar of jurisdiction—Scope—Held, challenge to appointments made without lawful authority does not relate to terms and conditions of service, hence, does not fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal—Writ of quo warranto falls within the purview of High Court under Article 199 and can be invoked even if petitioners are civil servants—Bar under Article 212 is not attracted. (c) Civil Servants Act, 1973 ----Ss. 5, 11B, 25 & Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3, 10, 12 Regularization of contractual appointees in BS-16 and above without FPSC recommendation—Respondents were initially appointed on contract basis and later regularized on the recommendation of a Cabinet Sub-Committee—Held, such appointments violated the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Civil Servants Act and the 1973 Rules, which require FPSC oversight for appointments in BS-16 and above—Regularization without Commission’s scrutiny under Section 11B was without lawful authority and thus invalid—Cabinet Sub-Committee had no jurisdiction to regularize such appointments. (d) Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 ----Ss. 7, 10 & FPSC (Functions) Rules, 1978, R.5 Commission's jurisdiction—Held, FPSC alone has the mandate to assess fitness of those appointed without adherence to proper procedure—Cabinet Sub-Committee was only tasked with regularization of BS-1 to BS-15 employees and had no authority to regularize BS-16 and above posts—Failure to refer the matter to FPSC under Section 11B of the Act rendered the regularizations unlawful. (e) General Clauses Act, 1897 ----S. 21—Principle of locus poenitentiae Irrevocability of illegal orders—Held, illegal appointments cannot be validated on the basis of elapsed time or past and closed transaction—Doctrine of locus poenitentiae allows an authority to rescind a prior order before rights vest; however, it does not protect illegal orders once issued—Even if appointments were acted upon, if they were void ab initio and without lawful sanction, the same cannot be protected. (f) Past and Closed Transactions ----Doctrine—Scope Claim that matter had become past and closed due to passage of time and continued service—Rejected—Held, illegality cannot be cured by passage of time and cannot be shielded under the doctrine of past and closed transactions—Illegal acts remain void regardless of duration of their continuance. (g) Territorial Jurisdiction Held, territorial jurisdiction of a High Court in a writ of quo warranto is determined by the location of the public office, not the residence or posting of the incumbent—Since F.G.E.I.’s head office is in Rawalpindi and appointments were issued there, jurisdiction of Rawalpindi Bench was valid. (h) Relief Granted—Referral to FPSC Court, while declaring the appointments and regularization of respondents illegal, refrained from annulling them immediately—Held, since respondents’ qualifications were not seriously challenged and there was no allegation of fraud, justice required that cases be referred to FPSC under Section 11B of the Civil Servants Act—Commission directed to assess respondents' fitness for appointment and proceed accordingly. Disposition: Petition partly allowed—Appointments and regularization of respondents declared illegal and without lawful authority—Cases directed to be referred to FPSC under S. 11B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, for assessment of fitness.