1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

20. I may observe that Public Service Commission of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is an institution which follows an international pattern. Such institutions exist in many countries of the world. In England recruitment of all permanent civil servants is in the hands of Civil Service Commission which conducts competitive examination for that purpose. The qualifications for appointment to any appointment under the Crown, whether permanent or temporary, are also subject to the approval of the Commission. The functions of Canadian Civil Service Commission is to conduct recruitment to civil service. It also supervises promotion and organisation of services. In Australia the Public Service Board recruits and qualifies personnel and also makes suggestions for promoting departmental efficiency and economy. It is the power of the Board to report to the House of Parliament if its suggestions are not accepted. There is a similar Commission in United States and is known as "Federal Service Commission" and covers practically the entire Federal services. However, it is, like the Public Service Commission of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, an advisory body. Public Service Commission is in existence there from the very birth of Pakistan. Such a Commission was in existence in undivided India under Government Act of 1935.

21. Service Commissions are constitutional bodies and enjoy independence in their functioning so that best results are achieved. These Commissions are manned by persons nominated by the executive but it is universally recognized that they have to be free from executive control. This is not a pious wish but is explicitly found in the laws of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Section 48 of the Interim Constitution Act gives Constitutional status to Public Service Commission and its functions. Then it is laid down in ‑section 10 of the Public Service Commission Act that the' Commission shall present to the President annually a report on the work done by the Commission, and the President shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the ‑Legislative Assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It is further laid down that the report to be submitted by the Commission shall set out to cases in which the advice of the Commission was not accepted and matters on which the Commission was, where required, not consulted. The reasons for not accepting the advice or for not consulting it have also to be stated. It is provided in the Public Service Commission Act that Chairman and Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President and on ceasing to hold office they shall not be eligible for further appointment in the service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. All these provisions show the independence of the Public Service Commission. On the contrary there is no law which may, directly or indirectly, lay down that the Government may control the functioning of Public Service Commission or nay otherwise give directions to that Constitutional body. Our Constitution lays down separate functions for all organs set up by it. These functions cannot be controlled or circumvented except in accordance with the Constitution. Thus, in my view para. (1) of Notification No.l is without lawful authority.

22. It has been noted above that functions of the Commission are to conduct tests and examinations for‑recruitment to civil services and specified posts. These words are similar to the words used in respect of the functions of the Universities, Education Boards and other examining bodies. For instance, in the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act 1985 relevant phraseology used by the law‑maker while enumerating powers of the University is as follows:‑ (1) ... ..... ..... (2) To prescribe courses of studies to be conducted by it; (3) To hold examinations and When one turns to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1986 similar words are found in it. Section 10 deals with powers of the Intermediate Board. It lays down that : "(1) ..... (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by the preceding subsection, the Board shall have the power‑ (i) to hold and conduct all examinations " In a test or examination result is compiled on the basis of marks obtained by a candidate. Considerations like departmental training and experience are extraneous to an examination. It is my view, therefore, that giving weightage on the basis of experience and departmental training is beyond the scope of the functions assigned by law to the Public Service Commission.

23. It was argued on behalf of the Government that by using the word "due in Notification No.l it has been left to the Commission to determine whether any wieghtage was due or not in a given, case. This argument stands repelled by the conclusion reached above that such considerations are extraneous to the statutory functions of the Commission. Apart from that if the impugned notification is binding then the Commission cannot refuse to give weightage to a person who has already held the post for some years and has also obtained departmental training. The notification does leave the quantum of weightage in the discretion of the Commission but question is immaterial when weightage cannot itself be justified. In Yunus Tahir's case, which has been relied upon by the High Court, it was held by this Court that scheme of law is that those who prove themselves to be the best amongst the contestants in an examination or test are to be recommended for appointment by the Commission. I may reproduce the following passage from the judgment:‑‑ "In accordance with the scheme laid down by sections 48 and 49 of the Interim Constitution Act and the Public Service Commission Act and the rules made under them, if a citizen wants to enter the civil services of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Grade‑16 or above has to pass through the following procedure. Firstly the applications are called by tire Public Service Commission for which certain conditions are laid down which must be fulfilled by the candidates. They relate to qualification, age etc. After receiving the applications‑ the Public Service Commission holds written and oral tests and on the basis of merit recommendations are formulated. For every post there are hundreds of applicants although they are less in posts of specialized nature. It means that a person stands a remote chance of selection in an open competition' and only those are selected who on account of their qualifications, brilliance and hard work prove themselves to be the best among the contestants. This is the plain requirement of the laws which apply to all State subjects but the Regularisation Act has given a special benefit to those who are ad hoc appointees. Jobs have been bestowed to them by operation of law by depriving people like Javed 1qbal Khawaja who is unemployed and had applied to the Public Service Commission and wanted to compete for a job. His right to compete is recognized by the existing laws but has been taken away."

24. It was specifically held in paragraph reproduced below of the judgment under reference that ii is only the Public Service Commission which can judge the suitability of the candidate:‑‑ "It is legal requirement; as evidenced by section 48 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act read with Public Service Commission Act and with the Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules that the merit and suitability of the candidates must be judged by the Public Service Commission. Therefore, this function cannot be performed by any other authority. In the present case the job has been performed by the legislature through the Regularisation Act, which declared them `validly selected' without going through the selection procedure:'

25. In our system, those who render political service are appointed as Prime Minister, Ministers and Advisors, but, under their control, the administration is carried on by permanent civil servants who are supposed to know rules and regulations which have been framed by the Government to run the administration. It is laid down in rule 9 (4) of the Rules of Business of the Azad Government that :‑ "If an order contravenes any law, rules or policy decision, it shall be the duty of the Officer next below the Officer making such order to point it out to the Officer making the order and the latter shall refer the case to the next higher authority."

26. Similarly it is laid down in rule 8 that a Secretary to the Government shall assist the Minister in formulation of policy and also re‑submit the case to the Minister where an order issued by the Minister appears to involve a departure from rules, regulations or Government policy inviting his attention to the relevant rules, regulation or Government policy for reconsideration and if there is disagreement between the Minister and Secretary the case shall go to the Prime Minister for orders. It is a well‑established system that members of the civil services are appointed solely on the basis of merit determined in open competition so that they could carry on administration independently because selection on merit is instrumental in creating the necessary confidence and independence to perform the functions as a civil servant particularly those quoted above from the Rules of Business. It is thus obvious that clause (i) of the Notification No.l violates both these legal requirements. It interferes in working of the Commission and also makes way for selection of those who are not the best amongst the contestants.

27. The High Court has not set aside clause (i) of the Notification but has modified it in following terms:‑ "In the impugned Notification No.1; the experience and training shall mean that earned before adhoc appointment and not thereafter; " It was vehemently contended by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan that modification ordered by the High Court is not legally sustainable. His contention was that under writ jurisdiction conferred on the High Court the High Court cannot frame a rule or itself pass an order to substitute an executive order. It was contended that the High Court can declare an act to have been done without lawful authority but cannot legislate. In this connection reliance, was placed on Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Muhammad Said Khan (PLD 1973 SC 514). It was observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as follows:‑‑ ‑ "The High Court cannot itself make any executive order. Its functions being confined to issuance of directions on matters of law, where an administrative or executive officer acts under a law the High Court will control the action by an appropriate order only if he goes out of law, i.e., exercises a jurisdiction not vested in him by law."

28. After giving anxious thought and taking into consideration different aspects of the matter I have reached the conclusion that there is force in the contention and that in the circumstances of the case the correct and legal course to be adopted by the High Court was to make a declaration that clause (i) of Notification No.l had been issued without lawful authority and was of no legal effect and should not have substituted it by making a modification. Even otherwise the order passed by the High Court, in my estimation, is not sustainable because it does not conform to the view which I have taken in earlier part of the judgment that giving any weightage to a candidate for his past experience and departmental training violates the fundamental right of equality before law. This would create a distinct class as compared to the general public who have had no such experience or training. Apart from that, as held in the earlier part of this judgment, the recommendation of the Public Service Commission has to be based on test and examination conducted by the Commission, and training and past experience have not to be considered. It also runs counter to the. view taken earlier that the Government is not empowered to issue directions to the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the relief given by the High Court has to be modified so that it is substituted by a declaration that clause (i) of Notification No.l regarding experience and departmental training is declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect. .

29. Now I turn to clause (ii) of Notification No.l wherein it has been laid down that upper age limit in case of candidates who have served as ad hoc/work‑charge basis shall be relaxed to the extent of the service rendered by them. The High Court has accepted the contention of respondent Javed Iqbal Khawaja that the relaxation given to the persons working on ad hoc or work charge basis is a clear discrimination against those State subjects holding similar qualifications who could not apply for jobs under the Government because of the fact that vacant posts were being occupied by ad hoc or work charge appointees and the posts were not advertised for such a long time that they became over age. In the judgment under appeal the learned Judges in the High Court referred to the following proviso attached to rule 23 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977:‑‑ "Provided further that ad hoc appointment shall not confer any right on the person so appointed in the matter of regular appointment to the same post nor the service shall count towards seniority in the grade." It was observed by the learned Judges that:‑ "While giving relaxation a particular and specific class is picked and pointed out to be benefited by the Notification."

30. It was vehemently contended before us by the learned counsel for the Government that relaxation of the upper age limit had been accorded in view of the judgment of the High Court which was upheld by this Court in Yunus Tahir's case and therefore no exception could validly be taken to it. This argument was raised before the High Court and this aspect of the matter was kept in view while giving direction in the relief part of the order 'which was in the following terms:‑ " .. the upper age limit of all, who are otherwise academically qualified and apply for regular appointment against the posts filled in on adhoc basis, shall be relaxed by the Government to enable them to compete;" .

31. On the question of age the High Court made some observations to which we will be adverting after a little while, but for the present I want to point out that so far as this Court is concerned this aspect was not adverted to in Yunus Tahir's case. Appeals in this Court were riled by the Government, Legislative Assembly and a large number of ad hoc appointees. Those who appealed, the number being more than two hundred, were mostly those who were not arrayed as respondents in the High Court but obtained leave of this Court on the ground that the judgment declaring Azad jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Regularisation for ad hoc appointment) Act as invalid adversely affected their rights. The point about the relaxation of age was not raised before this Court, therefore, our judgment is silent on this point. Through the, order of this court the Regularisation Act was found to be void being‑violative for Fundamental Right No.15 and all appeals were dismissed. In the last paragraph of the judgment of the High Court the learned Judge in the High Court dealt with the question of relaxation of age limit. The relevant part alongwith preceding two lines was to the following effect:‑ "Consequently all orders and notifications whereby ad hoc appointments of respondents civil servants have been regularised are declared null and void and of no legal effect. These appointments are to be regulated in accordance with law. Here it may be observed that since various persons holding ad hoc appointments any have passed upper age limit of initial appointment they may not be punished due to the enactment and of its consequence. Therefore, the Government may, in exercise of its power, relax the upper limit age of such persons to enable them to avail an opportunity of appearance in test/examination held by the Commission."

32. It may be seen that the High Court did not issue a writ or direction in respect of relaxation of age. In fact no prayer for such a direction was made. The High Court only expressed a desire and it was made clear that while relaxing age limit the Government was exercise to exercise its own power. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, therefore, is only partly right on this point.

33. The case of the respondent before the High Court was that while acting on the desire for the High Court the Government was duty bound to extend the benefit of age relaxation to all those who were placed in similar circumstances. I find that no ground in, respect of this order of the High Court was incorporated in the memorandum for appeal. No tenable ,argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the Government against the view taken by the learned Judges in the High Court that relaxation in favour of the ad hoc and workcharge appointees was discriminatory. It may be seen that the desire of the High Court was expressed in respect of those persons who were to be adversely affected by the judgment in which the aforesaid desire was expressed. It was for the Government to examine the matter in its overall context. The desire of the High Court did not absolve the Government of its duty to act in such a manner that it did not cause discrimination amongst those who were desirous of joining Government service. In my opinion the view taken by the High Court that clause (ii) under reference is discriminatory is correct. However, the relief on this point also needs to be likewise amended. Therefore, it is declared that clause (ii) of the Notification No.l was issued without lawful authority and is void. If the Government wishes to relax the upper age limit it is desired that it should exercise its power in such a way that other persons who have suffered due to the situation under review should also be benefited.

34. Having disposed of the dispute about Notification No.1, I may now take up Notification No.2. By this Notification, Notification of 4th August, 1990 has been amended. Both the notifications have been reproduced above in the opening part of this judgment. The High Court has expressed the opinion that the posts mentioned in the deleted items Nos.3 and 4 of Schedule `C' (Sections officers and other posts in Local Government Department etc.) have been taken out of the purview of the Public Service Commission. This notification was declared void by the High 'Court as a whole. The interpretation of the Government is that the only effect of Notification No.2 is that syllabus prescribed in Schedule `A' of the Notification of 4th of August, 1990 has become in applicable to the posts mentioned in items Nos.3 and 4 due to the deletion of these items.

35. The High Court has recorded various reasons for the conclusion that Notification No.2 was invalid. However, during the course of arguments before this Court it was pointed out to the learned counsel for parties that there was a provision in the rules known as "The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994", which had not been brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the High Court and was not referred to in the arguments before this Court, but appeared to be most significant for resolving this point. The relevant rule is rule 5 which is as follows:‑ "The syllabus for various posts and mode of determination of eligibility shall be such as may be notified by the Commission in its instructions from time to time:"

36. On our pointation the learned counsel for the parties made their submissions about. the effects of this rule. In my view this rule unequivocally confers the powers of prescribing the syllabus for various posts on the Public Service Commission. It also similarly empowers the Commission to decide the mode of determining the eligibility, which means that it is the Commission which has to decide what would be syllabus for a written examination and also can decide whether to hold or not a written examination for a given set of posts. Notification No.2 clearly is hit by Rule 5 as the Government tried to exercise powers which are vested in the Public Service Commission by ordering that the syllabus given in the order of 4th of August, 1990 shall not apply to the posts mentioned in Items Nos3 and 4 and that there will be no written examination/test for filling up those posts. Notification No.2 was iss4ed on 8th of November, 1994 while Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules came into force on 5th of September, 1994. These rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of powers vested in it under section 11 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Act, 1986. Thus, the Government exercised the powers which were not vested in it and had become vested in the Public Service Commission, if it was not already possessed of such powers. Confronted with this situation Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan submitted that the Public Service Commission has not prescribed any syllabus in pursuance of rule 5 and the High Court in these circumstances should not have issued a direction to the Public Service Commission to prescribe the syllabus before holding any examination. In our view this submission has no force. Notification of 4th of August, 1990 was in existence when Notification No.2 was issued. In fact Notification No.2 was issued to amend it. The validity of Notification of 4th of August, 1990 has not been challenged by any party nor indeed is subject‑matter for the present proceedings. The Notification of 4th of August, 1990 was issued by the Government in purported exercise of rule 16 of the Azad Jammu and kashmir Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. This is the case of the learned counsel for the Government that the Government was fully empowered by rule 16 to prescribe syllabus. Since the Notification of 4th August, 1990 is not under challenge it has to be assumed that the notification was issued under proper authority. The position has now changed after the promulgation of rule 5 and it is only the Public Service Commission which can prescribe syllabus and the mode of determining the eligibility. In light of section 21 of the General Clauses Act it is only the. Public Service Commission which can amend the syllabus and the mode already prescribed. After promulgating Rule 5 the Government has itself divested itself of powers which, according to its claim, vested in it. It follows that the Notification is bad because it runs counter to Rule 5 mentioned above.

37. Rule 5 mentioned above was not cited before the High Court. It is the law of the land and since it has come to our notice it is our duty to enforce it. The fad that the parties were not aware of this rule or, although I am not inclined to believe that it is probable, was purposely not brought to the notice of the High Court does not make any difference so far as its effectiveness as a law is concerned. I may also point out that an order or decree passed by a Court can be upheld on any available ground. The effect of rule 5 is that the order of the High Court in respect of Notification No. 2 is upheld.

38. Another reason recorded by the High Court for declaring Notification. No. 2 as invalid is that the Public Service Commission was not consulted by the Government while issuing the notification and thus section 7 of the Public Service Commission Act was violated. For ready reference it may be re‑stated that under section 7 functions of the Commission are given in three clauses (a), (b) and (c). In clause (a) the. Commission has been empowered to conduct tests and examinations for civil services of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and other specified posts. The function laid down in clause (b) is to advise the President on matters relating to qualifications for, and method of recruitment to, the services and posts referred to in clause (a). Clause (c) mentions other matters which the President may refer to the Commission, but it is not relevant here.

39. It will be seen that the two functions have been specifically entrusted to the Commission. These two functions are part of the same section. It follows from the scheme of section 7 that functions prescribed is clause (a) and those mentioned in clause (b) stand on the same footing. Section 7 owes its origin to subsection (1) of section 48 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, which lays down that:‑‑ "(1) There shall be a Public Service Commission for Azad Jammu and Kashmir which shall consist of such number of members, including a Chairman, and perform such function as may be prescribed."

40. As to what functions have to be performed by the Public Service Commission have been left to be prescribed by the Constitution maker to be "prescribed"? "Prescribed" has been defined to mean prescribed by law or rules made thereunder. In presence of this provision Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Act was enacted

41. In Shaikh Manzoor Ahmad's case (supra) this Court, by majority opinion, laid down that the functions prescribed by the Public Service Commission Ad have the same force as functions prescribed by the Constitution itself. It was also held that it is in pursuance of the command of the Constitution that Public Service Commission performs the functions assigned to it. Thus, these provisions are mandatory in nature and must be strictly followed

42. The use of word "President" in clause (b) was commented upon by the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the Government, was right in submitting that the word "President" in effect means the Government because the executive authority of the Government is performed in the name of President. The requirement, therefore, is that the Public Service Commission has to be consulted by the Government in the matters mentioned in clause (b). The subject‑matter of Notification No. 2 is clearly a matter relating to method of recruitment. Therefore, before making rule or passing any order it was mandatory requirement to seek the advice of the Commission.

43. Arguments were heard in the case on 8th of March, 1995 by High Court. After hearing the arguments the High Court passed the order that the learned Judges were felt persuaded to pass the following order:‑‑ "Present Chaudhry M. Ibrahim Zia, Advocate for the petitioner; Advocate‑General for respondents.

1. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.

2. The impugned notifications challenged through this writ petition regulate the method of recruitment by the P.S.C. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, we feel persuaded to have an Affidavit of the Chairman of Public Service Commission as to whether the impugned notification in view of section 7 of the P.S.C. Act which regulates the method of recruitment by PSC have been issued on the advice or recommendations of the Commission. The Chairman P.S.C. shall file the attested Affidavit on or before 15th instant." In response to this order the following affidavit was filed by Major‑General (Retd.) Tariq Nizami, Chairman of the Public Service Commission:‑‑ "Affidavit of Major‑General (Retd.) Tariq Nizami, Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission. The above named deponent do hereby declare and affirm as under:‑‑

1. That the Public Service Commission did not propose, suggest or advise the authority concerned to change, delete or abolish the prescribed syllabus/test etc. for the post of Section Officers and others.

2. That the Public Service Commission was not consulted before the issuance of Notification No. S&GAD/A‑4/VI‑R/90, dated 8th November, 1994. Verification Verified on 13th day of March, 1995 at Muzaffarabad that the contents of this affidavit are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."

44. It was contended before us by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan that the Government was not given an opportunity to rebut the affidavit. The order shows that it was dictated in presence of the parties. If the Government wanted to file any other document or affidavit it should have sought permission of the Court. In the petition for leave to appeal it has been urged in grounds) of para. 6 that:‑‑ "The Government has consulted the Chairman, Public Service Commission from time to time in various matters in an open meeting with the Prime Minister. The Chairman, Public Service Commission had given his opinion for issuance of the impugned Notifications in a meeting before the Prime Minister."

45. This is an averment which is not supported by an affidavit sworn by a person who was present when the meeting mentioned in it was held. However, this aspect is insubstantial. Section 7 requires consultation with the Public Service Commission and not the Chairman. Chairman of the Commission and the Public Service Commission have separate entities, and are not inter changeable terms. Consultation which is required by law is with all the j members, including the Chairman, and not with one of them. Therefore, even if we assume that the Chairman had been consulted in an open meeting it is of no legal significance. In light of this discussion the view taken by the learned members of the Division Bench is correct and is upheld.

46. The High Court has also held that the posts mentioned at serial Nos. 3 and 4 of Schedule `C' of Notification of 4th of August, 1990, namely, the posts of Section Officers and Misc, non‑technical general cadre posts (BPS‑17) in the departments of Local Government, Food etc. stand deleted from the purview of the Public Service Commission. It has been vehemently contended by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the Government, that it has no such effect. His contention was that the effect of Notification No.2 was only that syllabus mentioned in Notification of 4th of August, 1990 upon coming into force of Notification No. 2, became inapplicable to the posts referred to above. In my opinion the matter already stands resolved in the judgment of this Court in Shaikh Manzoor Ahmad's case mentioned above. It is laid in section 7 of the Public Service Commission Ad that Public Service Commission shall hold tests and examinations for initial recruitment to civil services of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, it is a requirement of the Act that recruitment to Civil Services shall be made through the Commission. In exercise of powers under section 23 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has constituted a large number of services such as:‑‑ (1) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1978. (2) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretaries Service Rules, 1992. (3) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Deputy Secretaries Recruitment Rules, 1978. (4) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Management Group (Composition and Promotion) Rules, 1980. (5) Azad Jammu and. Kashmir Extra Assistant Commissioner (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 1980. (6) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service (Composition and Cadre) Rules, 1'983. (7) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Food Department Service Rules, 1984. (8) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Health Department Service Rules, 1984. (9) Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Cooperative Department Service Rules, 1990. (10) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government and Rural Development Department Service Rules. (11) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Zakat and Ushr Department Service Rules, 1985. (12) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Industries, Commerce, Sericulture, Labour and Mineral Development Department Service Rules, 1984. All these services are "civil services" within the meaning of section

7. Therefore, all posts forming part of these and other services have been brought within the purview of the Commission by virtue of section 7 of the Act. In light of the rule laid down in Sh. Manzoor Ahmad's case these posts cannot be taken out of the purview of the Commission except by amending the Public Service Commission Act. Then there are posts which do not form part of a civil service. It is required by section 3 of the Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules that those posts carrying B‑16 and above would also be filled up through the Commission. According to the settled rule a post falling in rule 3 cannot be taken out of the purview of the Commission without amending the said rule.

47. When I turn to Schedule `C' of the Notification of 4th of August, 1990, I find that most of the posts in Schedule `C' are included in one service or the other. For example the posts of Section Officer forms part of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules. The posts carrying Grade‑16 and above in the Departments of Local Government, Food, Cooperative and Industries are also likewise encadred in separate services. In light of the rule laid down in Sh. Manzoor Ahmad's case those posts which stand included in different services cannot be taken out of the purview of the Commission except by amending the Public Service Commission Act. A similar step has to be taken about posts prescribed under rule 3 of the Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules. Since no such amendment has been carried out the deletion of these posts from Schedule `C' mentioned above cannot have the effect of exempting these posts from the operation of Public Service Commission Act or the rules made thereunder. Therefore, the conclusion is that Notification No. 2 does not have effect of exempting posts mentioned in Schedule `C' of the Public Service Commission Act and the rules made thereunder. I hold accordingly. As a consequence of the foregoing conclusions the appeal is dismissed, but the reliefs granted by the High Court are modified. Therefore, it is,‑‑ (A) declared that Notifications No.. S&GAD/A‑4(170)/VI‑R/90 and No. S&GAD/A‑4(170/VI‑R/90 have been issued without lawful authority and are of no legal effect; (B) desired that Government may relax the upper age limit of candidates for recruitment in posts under the Government in such a way that the benefit accrues to all candidates equally. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court. I agree. AA./89/SC/AJ&K Appeal dismissed.