KARACHI: SHC allows plea against FPSC on seat allocation
By Our Reporter
KARACHI, Oct 17: The Sindh High Court allowed on Wednesday a constitutional petition challenging the Federal Public Service Commission’s stand vis-a-vis allocation of seat from urban Sindh, and held that the FPSC rule is ultra vires of the Constitution.
A division bench, consisting of Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Ali Aslam Jaferi, also directed the FPSC to treat the case of the petitioner, Khan Faisal, accordingly. The petitioner, who was represented by counsel Amir Hani Muslim, had appeared in the competitive examination-2000.
The court, in essence, upheld the petitioner’s contention that he was entitled to allocation of seat from urban Sindh, Karachi East, in the competitive examination-2000 held by the respondents on the basis of his domicile and permanent residence certificate.
Khan Faisal was born in Karachi on July 30, 1976 and had his primary and secondary education from Gulistan Shah Abdul Latif Boys School, Sindhi Muslim Housing Society, Karachi. He passed his Intermediate examination from Government College for Science, Gulshan-i-Iqbal, and did his graduation in commerce from Karachi University. He is domiciled in District Karachi (East) and has also been issued PRC by the DM East.
The petitioner’s father, AAG Sarwar Khan, came to Karachi from Rawalpindi in 1964, and after completing his education he started his legal practice in 1977 as an advocate.
The petitioner had appeared in the written examination of the FPSC and was declared successful.
When the petitioner was waiting for viva-voce examination, he received a letter from assistant director CSS saying that his “domicile had been accepted by the Commission as of the NWFP for the purpose of allocation in terms of Rule 6 (iii) (a) of the Rules relating to the above examination.”
The petitioner, on receipt of letter, made representation challenging his allocation from the NWFP on the basis of the referred rule for the competitive examination-2000 issued by the FPSC. With the said representation, the petitioner also gave details pertaining to the domicile and the relevant document which his father and his two sisters were having.
In the meantime, the petitioner received a letter from the above respondent saying that the “Commission has reconsidered your case and reiterates its decision already communicated to you vide this office letter of even number dated July 13.”
The petitioner submitted that the rule 6 (iii) (a), notified by the respondent No 2, was ultra vires of the Constitution, and he having no other efficacious alternative remedy preferred his petition.
It was the case of the petitioner that “rule 6 (iii) (a) of the respondent No 2 was in conflict with articles 23, 27 and 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hence liable to be set at naught.
“That the orders of the respondent Nos 2 and 3 allocating the petitioner’s seat from the NWFP on the basis of the birth place of his father unilaterally is ultra vires with the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution.”
It was also his case that the respondents had misinterpreted rule 6, framed by the respondent No 2, by refusing the petitioner allocation of seat from Sindh Urban Karachi (East) quota.
The respondents No 2 and 4 erred in law in overlooking the documentary evidence which the petitioner has placed before them along with his. It is the case of the petitioner that neither he nor his father or sisters ever resided in the NWFP.
On the contrary, the petitioner’s father and his sisters, on the basis of their domicile issued by District Magistrate Karachi (East), was serving in Sindh and were getting educating in medical colleges at Karachi.
It was also the case of the petitioner that refusal to allocate the seat from urban Sindh quota to him would have far-reaching effects not only on him but also on his other family members.
The petitioner had contended that on identical ground certain constitutional petitions bearing Nos 837, 933, 461 of 2000 were filed with this court, which by its judgment dated August 8, 2000 declared rule 6 (iii) (a) of the Competitive Examination Rules 2000 framed by the respondent No 2 ultra vires of article 27 (2) of the Constitution.
He had also prayed for declaring that the letters dated 13-07-2001 and 4-09-2001 addressed by the respondent No 3 nullity in the eyes of law as being ultra vires of articles 23, 27 and 37 of the Constitution.
