Nasir Saeed Sheikh, J.

- This judgment disposes of Writ Petition

No.16205/2013 and Writ Petition No.20916/2013 which writ petitions involve
common questions of law and facts.

2. The government of Punjab through Punjab Public Service Commission

Lahore invited applications through Consolidated Advertisement No.23/2012
published in the Daily Jang Lahore dated 18.11.2012 to fill up 47 vacancies
against the posts of Assistant District Attorneys. The following qualification
criterion was prescribed for the applicants in accordance with the rules:-

i) LL.M., or equivalent qualification recognized by the Higher

Education Commission having two years active practice as
an Advocate; OR

ii) LL.B. (with 50% aggregate marks) or equivalent

qualification recognized by the Higher Education
Commission having four years active practice as an
Advocate.

3. The petitioners of Writ petition No.16205/2013 who are four in number

whereas the only petitioner of Writ Petition No.20916/2013 alongwith many
others submitted their application forms against the vacancies declared. The
petitioners although appeared in the written test but their applications were
rejected by the Punjab Public Service Commission Lahore on the ground that
the petitioners do not fulfil the criterion of having 50% aggregate marks in
their respective LL.B. examinations. Through Writ Petition No.16205/2013 the
WP No.16205/2013 2

four petitioners Sadia Akhtar Advocate, Naila Wali Advocate, Afia Khan
Advocate and Mohammad Javaid Hussain Advocate assailed the rejection of
their application forms on the ground stated above whereas Writ Petition
No.20916/2013 was instituted by Shahbaz Gulzar on the similar ground as his
application form was also rejected on the ground that his aggregate marks in
LL.B. examination were less than 50% aggregate marks in his LL.B. and thus
does not fulfil the requisite criterion.

4. Four persons Ahsan Safdar, Asif Riaz, Wasim Zafar and Ijaz Mehmood
Advocates who had obtained more than 50% aggregate marks in their
respective LL.B. examinations and have been selected in the process, moved
CM No.3/2013 for their impleadment in Writ Petition No.16205/2013 as they
were being adversely affected by the proceedings of the instant cases. The case
has been heard in the presence of all these persons as well.

5. The writ petitions were replied through reports and parawise comments
by the respondents, particularly, the respondent Punjab Public Service
Commission. It was stated by the Punjab Public Service Commission that a
total number of 550 applications were received by the Commission in response
to the advertisement and 191 candidates including the petitioners qualified
written test and were provisionally called for interview. Upon the scrutiny of
the applications, it was found that petitioner No.1 Sadia Akhtar obtained
45.65% aggregate marks in her LL.B. examination, petitioner No.2 Naila Wali
obtained 46.2% aggregate marks in her LL.B. examination, petitioner No.3
Afia Khan obtained 46.65% aggregate marks in her LL.B. examination
whereas the petitioner No.4 Mohammad Javaid Hussain obtained 46.25%
aggregate marks in his LL.B. examination. The petitioner of Writ Petition
No.20916/2013 Shahbaz Gulzar had obtained 48.14% aggregate marks in his
Ll.B. examination. This factual position regarding their aggregate marks in
their respective LL.B. examinations as reflected above supported by the
parawise comments, has not been controverted by any of the petitioners of both
the writ petitions. The respondents further stated in their parawise comments
that all the qualified candidates against 47 posts have been selected on the basis
of criterion fixed in the rules as advertised in the advertisement and that on
account of restraining orders issued by this Court against announcing of the
final results the process of selection is not being completed.
WP No.16205/2013 3

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that previously Writ
Petition No.19417/2011 on similar grounds as raised in the instant writ petition
was instituted before this Court by one Mohammad Munawar Jang Sher Qadri
Advocate which writ petition was accepted by a learned Single Judge of this
Court vide judgment announced on 9th of April, 2012 and ICA No.317/2012
against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by a
learned Division Bench of this Court. It is further argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the government has prescribed different
criterions for the post of Assistant District Attorneys through amendment of the
rules in the year 2012 whereas for the posts of Prosecution Branch for
conducting of criminal cases there is no such requirement of 50% aggregate
marks in LL.B. examination for the candidates as per the Rules of 2007 for
recruitment against Prosecutors of the Criminal Branch. This, the learned
counsel argued, is a discriminatory policy of the Government of Punjab and is,
therefore, liable to be struck down. The learned counsel for the petitioners
relied upon Hammad Abbasi Vs. Superintendent, Central Adyala Jail,
Rawalpindi (PLD 2010 Lahore 428) and Miss Shazia Batool Vs.
Government of Balochistan and others (2007 SCMR 410) in support of his
contentions.

7. The learned Assistant Advocate General has controverted the

contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners by arguing that in the year
2010 there was specified qualification for the posts of Assistant District
Attorneys as per District Law Officers Service Rules, 2010 in the following
manner:-
Minimum Qualification for Method of
appointment by initial recruitment Recruitment

i) L.L.M. or equivalent By initial

qualification recognized by the recruitment
Higher Education Commission
having two years active
practice as an Advocate or

ii) L.L.B. or equivalent

qualification (with 50%
aggregate marks) recognized by
the Higher Education
Commission having four years
active practice as an Advocate
WP No.16205/2013 4

8. The learned Assistant Advocate General argued that previous Writ

Petition No.19417/2011 instituted by Mohammad Munawar Jang Sher Qadri
Advocate was regarding interpretation of the District Law Officers Service
Rules, 2010 then in force and the learned Single Judge of this Court accepted
the previous Writ Petition No.19417/2011 on the ground that 50% aggregate
marks requirement was relatable to equivalent qualification and not to that
of LL.B. qualification. The learned Assistant Advocate General further argued
that the government through Notification No.SOR-III(S&GAD)1-6/97 dated
27.06.2012 amended the District Law Officers Service Rules, 2010 by
substituting the following:

LL.B. or equivalent qualification (with 50% aggregate marks)

recognized by the Higher Education Commission having four years
active practice as an Advocate

with the Rules in the following manner:-

L.L.B. (with 50% aggregate marks) or equivalent qualification
recognized by the Higher Education Commission having four years
active practice as an Advocate.

9. The learned Assistant Advocate General further argued that during the
pendency of the ICA No.317/2012 against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.19417/2011, the above fact was brought
to the notice of the learned Division Bench of this Court and the ICA was
disposed of as having become infructuous. The learned Assistant Advocate
General also argues that the government is fully competent to amend the rules
and enhance or clarify the qualification for any particular post and a writ
petition cannot be instituted to assail such an amendment or the enhanced
qualification prescribed for a particular post. The learned Assistant Advocate
General further clarified that all the persons who have been selected in the
process against the 47 vacancies of Assistant District Attorneys through the
process of Punjab Public Service Commission possess the qualification as
prescribed in the advertisement as well as in the amended Rules of 2012 of
having obtained 50% or above aggregate marks in the LL.B examination. The
learned Assistant Advocate General argued that there was no concept of
discrimination involved in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The
learned Assistant Advocate General relied upon the judgments reported as
WP No.16205/2013 5

Executive District Officer (Revenue), District Khushab at Jauharabad and

others Vs. Ijaz Hussain and another (2011 SCMR 1864), Imtiaz Ahmed
and others Vs. Punjab Public Service Commission through Secretary,
Lahore etc. (PLD 2006 SC 472) and Dr. Mohammad Hussain Vs. Principal,
Ayub Medical College and another (PLD 2003 SC 143) in support of his
contentions.

10. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the record as well as the case law cited. It is admitted fact
that all the petitioners of both the writ petitions have obtained less than 50%
aggregate marks in their respective LL.B. examinations. Through a
Notification dated 26.06.2012 the District Law Officers Service Rules, 2010
were amended in the following manner:-

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

SERVICES AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATIN
DEPARTMENT (REGULATIONS WING)

Dated the Lahore 26th June, 2012

NOTIFICATION

No.SOR-III(S&GAD)1-6/97. In exercise of the powers conferred under

section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (VIII of 1974), Governor
of the Punjab is pleased to direct that in the District Law Officers Services
Rules 2010, the following amendment shall be made:

AMENDMENT

In the said Rules, in the Schedule, for the existing entries in column No.5:

(a) at serial No.2 against the post of Deputy District Attorney

(BS-18), the following shall be substituted:

(i) LL.M or equivalent qualification recognized by the

Higher Education Commission having five years active
practice as an advocate; or

(ii) LL.B (with 50% aggregate marks) or equivalent

qualification recognized by the Higher Education
Commission having seven years active practice as an
Advocate; and

(b) at serial No.3 against the post of Assistant District

Attorney (BS-17), the following shall be substituted:

(i) LL.M or equivalent qualification recognized by the

Higher Education Commission having two years active
practice as an Advocate; or

(ii) LL.B (with 50% aggregate marks) or equivalent

qualification recognized by the Higher Education
WP No.16205/2013 6

Commission having four years active practice as an

Advocate.

MUHAMMAD ILYAS
Secretary (Regulations), S&GAD

No.SOR-III(S&GAD)1-6/97, Dated Lahore, the 27th June, 2012

A copy is forwarded for information and necessary action to:-

1. The Secretaries, Government of the Punjab:-

(i) Finance Department

(ii) Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department.

2. The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore.

11. The Previous Writ Petition No.19417/2011 instituted by Mohammad

Munawar Jang Sher Qadri was decided at that time on the ground that
un-amended District Law Officers Service Rules 2010 were interpreted and it
was held that the requirement of 50% aggregate marks in the previous Rules
did not apply to the LL.B. qualification and was applicable to equivalent
qualification criteria. Thereafter the government amended the District Law
Officers Service Rules 2010 through the notification noted above and
prescribed the qualification of 50% aggregate marks in LL.B. for the selection
of candidates against the post of Assistant District Attorney.

12. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as

Dr. Mohammad Hussain Vs. Principal, Ayub Medical College and another
(PLD 2003 SC 143) has observed as under:-

Government was competent to enhance, alter or amend the prescribed

qualification for a particular post---No one can claim a vested right in
promotion or in the terms and conditions for the promotion to a higher
post---government has the right to enhance the qualifications and the
standards for recruitment and promotion in order to maintain
efficiency in service---Civil servant can not claim vested right in other
higher tiers in the hierarchy except for the post which the civil servant
happened to hold---Principles.

In the judgment reported as Mohammad Ishaque and others Vs.

Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (2005 SCMR
980) the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as follows:-

No one can claim a vested right in promotion or in the terms and

conditions for the promotion to a higher post. The Government has the
right to enhance the qualifications and the standards for recruitment
and promotion in order to maintain efficiency in service. Except for
WP No.16205/2013 7

the post which the civil servant happens to hold, he cannot claim
vested right in other higher tiers in the hierarchy. (Emphasis
provided).

Same view was further reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court of

Pakistan in the subsequent judgments of Zafar Iqbal and another Vs.
Director, Secondary Education, Multan Division and 3 others (2006 SCMR
1427), N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission and others Vs. Mohammad
Arif and others (2011 SCMR 848), Dr. Shahnaz Wajid Vs. Federation of
Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Government of
Pakistan, Islamabad (2011 SCMR 1737) and Executive District Officer
(Revenue), District Khushab at Jauharabad and others Vs. Ijaz Hussain
and another (2011 SCMR 1864). A learned Division Bench of Lahore High
Court also held the same view in a judgment reported as Nazakat Abbas and
20 others Vs. Punjab Public Service Commission through Secretary and
another (2006 PLC (C.S.) 221) at page 224 and the following extract from the
said judgment from pages 224 to 225 is relevant and is reproduced below in
which the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan were
relied upon:-

The rules applicable and conditions required to be satisfied for the

recruitment of a particular post, are the one which exist on the date of
recruitment and not what were the requirement at an early date. The
selection or appointment of the petitioners is to be governed according
to law and the rules which are prevalent on the day of recruitment.
Honble Supreme Court in the case of Government of N.W.F.P. v.
Dr. Sheikh Muzaffar Iqbal and others (1990 SCMR 1321) has held as
under:-

The law has since then been well established that the
rules applicable and the conditions required to be satisfied
on the date of appointment are to be taken into
consideration and not what were the requirement at an
earlier date.

9. Government is competent to enhance, alter or amend the

prescribed qualification to maintain efficiency in service and a vested
right cannot be claimed in this respect. The apex Court in the case of
Dr. Mohammad Hussain vs. Principal Ayub Medical College (PLD
2003 SC 143) has dealt with this question in the manner as under:--

We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated

on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant regulations
and rules of PMDC concerning the appointment of
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in
Ayub Medical College, Abbotabad. The judgment
impugned has also been perused carefully. We are not
WP No.16205/2013 8

persuaded to agree with the prime contention of Sheikh

Mehmood Ahmad, learned Advocate Supreme Court on
behalf of petitioner that no amendment could be made in
the relevant regulations/rules by the competent authority
adversely affecting the rights of the petitioner for the
reason that there is no cavil with the proposition that
Government is competent to enhance, alter or amend the
prescribed qualification for a particular post which cannot
be objected as qualification for a particular post cannot be
kept unchanged for decades to safeguard the interest of a
particular incumbent and day to day changes in every
walk of life.

13. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of
no help to him. The reported judgment Hammad Abbasi Vs. Superintendent,
Central Adyala Jail, Rawalpindi (PLD 2010 Lahore 428) is with respect to
the rules regarding the right of a convict under Anti Terrorism Act by a Court
and has no relevance to the service matter. The other judgment relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioners Miss Shazia Batool Vs. Government of
Balochistan and others (2007 SCMR 410) was a case in which there was
some district-wise division of quota between two districts of Balochistan and
the judgment was pronounced in the light of the admission policy. The facts
and circumstances of the said case cannot be of any help to the case of the
learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant case.

14. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no
restriction of LL.B. 50% aggregate marks under 2007 Rules governing the
recruitments in the Prosecution Branch on the criminal side has been analysed
and suffice it to observe that it is not the case of the petitioners that any
recruitment has been made by the government under 2007 Rules during the
year 2012 for the post in the Prosecution Branch of the Law Officers. In any
case the government is fully competent and empowered to declare any
particular enhanced qualification through the amendment of the rules in a
particular branch of its department and the recruitment having been made
against the 47 posts in question of persons possessing higher qualification in
the sense that they obtained 50% or more aggregate marks in their respective
LL.B. degrees, the justice cannot be seen to have been done if the persons
possessing lower marks in their respective LL.B. examinations i.e. less than
50% aggregate marks, be directed to be recruited against the said positions. It
is a time of meritorious competence and in order to improve the performance
WP No.16205/2013 9

of the persons to be recruited in different government departments, this Court

would not deem it appropriate to interfere in the prescribing of better or higher
qualifications for the recruitment of persons against different positions of the
government departments.

15. Keeping in view the circumstances as highlighted above and the case
law pronounced by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as discussed
above, I am not inclined to allow Writ Petition No.16205/2013 and Writ
Petition No.20916/2013 which have no merits and are accordingly dismissed.

(Nasir Saeed Sheikh)

Judge
Approved for reporting.
WP No.16205/2013 10

Nasir Saeed Sheikh, J.- For the reasons recorded in my judgment of

even date passed in Writ petition No.16205/2013 I am not inclined to allow the
instant writ petition which has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.

(Nasir Saeed Sheikh)

Judge