2003 PLP 1133 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISISON OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1133 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISISON OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1133 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1133 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1133 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISISON OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Farid Anwar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
High Court has jurisdiction to interpret the law and not to take the role of the policy maker or of the Legislature or of rule-making authority in the garb of interpretation
Even in case of harsh rules framed by the Authorities High Court has no jurisdiction to strike down the same-- Principles.
Judgment & Decree
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner had initiated preparation to appear in the examination but all of a sudden the respondents had amended the rule. The petitioner had secured vested right to appear on the basis of the old rules. He further submits that respondents framed the rules in violation of the Article 25 of the Constitution. He further urges that respondents have no lawful authority to amend the earlier rules in derogation of the rights of the petitioner. He summed up his arguments that rules are very harsh.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. It is settled principle of law that this Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments: The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49). Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473). This Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker or to take the role of the Legislature or to take the role of rule-making authority in the garb of interpretation. The respondents have lawful authority to frame the rules and this Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the rule-making authority. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments: Government of Pakistan v. Zamir Ahmad Khan (PLD 1975 SC 667). Zamir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Pakistan and another (1978 SCMR 327). The question of law has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Federation of Pakistan v. Mirza Muhammad Irfan Baig and 4 others (1992 SCMR 2430)., In case the rules are harsh even then this Court has no jurisdiction to strike down the rules as per C principles laid down in Samad Khan's case (1993 MLD 726).
5. In view of what has been discussed above, writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is well within his right to avail the proper remedy under the law before the competent authority for relaxation of age. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. M-1842/L Order accordingly.