2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The brief facts out of which this intra‑Court appeal has arisen are that the appellant appeared in C.S.S. Examination held by the respondent in the year 1996. The respondent intimated the appellant vide letter dated 3‑5‑1997 that the Federal Public Service Commission had accepted his domicile as Punjab in terms of rule 6(iii)(g) of the Rules for the Competitive Examination, 1996. The appellant was selected in 1996 examination and on the basis of the Punjab Domicile he was allocated to the Postal Group which he joined. The appellant had filed a representation before the Federal Public Service Commission on 12‑5‑1997. The Federal Public Service Commission did not pass any order on his application. Thereafter, appellant filed a representation before the Chairman of Federal Public Service Commission on 15‑8‑2000 which was rejected by the Chairman vide order dated 11‑9‑2000. The appellant being aggrieved filed W.P. No. 19477 of 2000 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 19‑4‑2002. Hence the present intra‑Court appeal.

2. When the learned counsel for the appellant was asked whether the infra‑Court appeal is maintainable in view of proviso of section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 he submitted that no appeal, revision or review is provided under the Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination, 1996 in view of rule 15, therefore, infra court appeal is maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon Ali Ahmad and others v. Muhammad Siddiq and others (KLR 1991 civil cases 132).

3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the appellant himself pled representation before the Chairman Federal Public Service Commission who rejected the same vide order dated 11‑9‑2000. The appellant challenged the vires of the order of Chairman in the Constitutional petition. As mentioned above the appellant himself filed representation against intimation letter of the Federal Public Service Commission dated 3‑5‑1997 before the Chairman. Now it does not lie in his mouth to say that the Chairman Federal public Service Commission had no authority at all to hear and decide the lis Before him on the well known principle of aprobate and reprobate as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool's case (PLD 1971 SC 376). We are also fortified by Chaudhry Haq Nawaz Chohan's case (1994 CLC 1530). The relevant observation is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "The person who himself invokes jurisdiction of a Court or an Authority and participates in the proceedings before the said forum/authority he cannot be subsequently allowed to aprobate and reprobate and to challenge the competence of proceedings before the said forum and to have jurisdiction to pass an order in the case, as he cannot be heard in support of his contention on the principle of estopple and acquiescence." It is also settled principle of law that once the. appellant has submitted representation in the form of review before the Chairman Federal Public Service Commission and after its decision against the appellant he is estopped to wriggle out from this position on the well‑known principle of waiver and estopple.

4. In view of what has been discussed above, this intra‑Court appeal is not maintainable. in view, of proviso of Section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ 1.???????? Muhammad Abdulah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1985 SC 107). 2.???????? Mst. Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bakhsh and others (PLD 1984 SC 344). For the foregoing reasons, this intra‑Court appeal is dismissed as being not maintainable. H.B.T./M‑1366/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.