2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This advertisement, as already stated, was published in the daily "Jung" Rawalpindi, on 2-8-1996, (copy available at Page 4 of the appeal file.)

3. A perusal of the appeal indicates that as per contention of the appellant he was fulfilling the requisite requirement of length of service but his result was not published and, latter on, he was informed by the impugned order dated 12-3-1997 that he was not possessing eight years' experience in B-11 to B-16 upto the closing date for receipt of applications i.e. 25-8-1996 and that he was not working in the Federal Secretariat/Attached Department, his application was found unsigned and that it had reached late. However, respondent No.2, i.e. FPSC through its Secretary, received about 2,500 applications by the closing date i.e. 25-8-1996, but due to large number of candidates, their eligibility could not be checked before holding the examination well within time and as such all the candidates were provisionally admitted to appear in the Examination subject to the following conditions:-- "The Commission has not yet examined the eligibility. The candidature is provisional. Therefore, the candidate should appear in the examination at his/her own risk The Confession will examine the eligibility conditions in due course and confirm or reject his/her candidature as the case may be. " and the ineligible candidates were rejected and the rejection letters were issued to them. 1t is in the para-wise comments of the respondents Nos. 1 (i) the appeal is time-barred; M (ii) the appellant having not exhausted departmental remedy of appeal according to law, the appeal is incomplete (probably the correct word 'incompetent' has wrongly been indicated as 'incomplete'). (iii) That the appellant is estopped from filing the appeal specially time when the selection has been made and the selectees had completed the training and have been posted in different Ministries and Divisions. (iv) The appeal is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of the selectees as necessary parties. (v) The High Court has also dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

4. Now the most important aspect of the matter is per para.5 of the appeal (the first four paras. are redundant) is that the appellant received a letter dated 19-9-1996 permitting him to appear in the examination vide Annexure-D and accordingly he did appear on 9th to 14th August, 1996. He requested the respondents to decide his appeal submitted by him for reducing the length of service from eight years to six years for the said examination but he received no reply. The result was, however, declared through newspapers which did not include the name and Roll Number of the appellant vide copy Annexure-E. The appellant, however, received a letter dated 12-3-1997 whereby his candidature was rejected due to lack of experience in B-11 to B-16 by respondent No.

2. According to the appellant, the condition of eight years' service was not applicable to him.

5. The appellant has also filed a petition for condonation of delay and is available at Page 13 of the file wherein it has been stated that he filed Writ Petition No. 706 of 1997 in the Labour High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, against the rejection letter dated 12-3-1997 of the FPSC, Islamabad, and the order dated 18-6-1997 was passed vide which he was directed to file an appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal as the matter falls within its exclusive jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court was barred under Article 212; of the constitution. Para.2 of the said petition further stats that the appellant filed an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) No. 613 of 1997 against the impugned order dated 18-6-1997 and the order dated 18-6-1997 was sustained and thereafter as per para.3 of the said petition, Appeal No.846 of 1997 was filed against the order dated 23-7-1997 of a Bench of the Lahore High Court in the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan but by order dated 10-10-1997 the decision of the Lahore High Court was upheld and thereafter admittedly he filed a Review Petition No. 55 of 1997 in the Supreme Court for reviewing its earlier decision dated 10-10-1997 "but by order dated 24-4-1998 the decision of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, was upheld and hence there was no delay whatsoever". "However, if there was any delay that may kindly be condoned in the light of the facts and circumstances stated above".

6. In wake of the above back-ground the appellant instituted the present Service Appeal No.327(R) of 1998 on 21-5-1998 which is hopelessly time-barred. A perusal of the appeal coupled with rest of the documents and parawise comments of the respondents it stands crystal clear that the appellant has no cause of action/grievance under the rules/law. Moreover, he wasted his much precious time in conducting illegal litigations before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had no jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution. The matter being relating to purely terms and conditions of service he should have stopped over there and as per the advice given, he should have straightaway sought all the legal remedies from this Tribunal but he still not satisfied filed an Intra-Court Appeal and then took the matter to the appex Court where the remedy sought for was not afforeded to him. Feeling still not satisfied he invoked the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and thereafter he changed the forum and per force approached this Tribunal without any legal justification. He is definitely an Auditor in the Office of the AGPR where he might be expert in account matters but in no' case in legal matters which is not his subject. He should have followed the advice at the earliest opportunity given to him by the Lahore High court, Rawalpindi Bench and now it is too late for him to agitate the matter on legal as well as factual aspects according to the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, contained in the under mentioned authorities, litigations undergone before incompetent forms do not create any justification for condonation of delay: (i) PLD 1983 SC 385; (ii) 1975 SCMR 259; (iii) 1985 SCMR 333; (iv) 1985 SCMR 890; (v) 1991 SCMR 1841 and (vi)1997 SCMR 1167. The appellant was deficient by length of service and it was not a fit case in which the deficiency could be condoned by the departmental authorities etc. and as per the advertisement it was one of the important conditions as required under the law. Law takes its own course, time and tide wait for C none, delay defeats equity and limitation when once starts cannot be stopped.

7. Before parting with the case the appellant is advised to carry out his preparation for future and should not be dissatisfied from the Allah Almighty who is giver of all things, including status and honour. He should also work on the principle "first deserve then desire" and not the otherwise. If he can keep all these hard facts in mind there is no reason as to why success should not crown him.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid discussion, legal authorities and hard facts appeal being hopelessly time barred, fails is hereby dismissed with costs. Parties to be informed accordingly. H.B.T./566/Sr.Trib. Appeal dismissed.