' This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court passed on 9-3- 2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondent No.6 as Sub-Judge on the recommendations made by Public Service Commission on 23-7-2001, was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated are that the petitioner, an Advocate by profession, appeared in the test and interview for the post of Sub-Judge alongwith respondents Nos.6 and 7 before the Public Service Commission. He as well as respondents Nos.6 and 7 were declared successful in the examination. However, on the basis of better merits the Public Service Commission recommended respondent No.6 for the post of Sub-Judge/Civil Judge against the quota reserved for District Bagh. The petitioner challenged the recommendations of the Public Service Commission through a writ petition in the High Court on the ground that respondent No.6 was not qualified to contest for the post of Sub-Judge/Civil Judge against the quota reserved for district Bagh as he was over age. The High Court after taking necessary proceedings in the case dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the light of Division Bench judgment in cases captioned Sagheer Ahmed and others v. Azad Government and others Writ Petition No.85 of 1999, and Zaheer Babar Chughtai v.- Azad Government and others Writ Petition No.544 of 1999, decided on 28-2-2001, whereby the appointment of one Mansha Ghous as Sub-Judge was challenged on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit, therefore, he was not eligible to appear in the test and interview before the Public Service Commission nor the Public Service Commission was justified in law in making the recommendations in his favour. The authority of the Government for accepting the recommendations of the Public Service Commission was also challenged. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no age limit was provided for the post of Sub-Judge, therefore Mansha Ghous, the contesting non petitioner in that case, could not be deprived for the appointment as Sub-Judge on this ground.
This judgment of the High Court was assailed in appeal before this Court but the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the High Court was maintained.
3. Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that respondent No.6, was disqualified to appear in the test and interview as he had crossed the upper age limit of 35 years. According to him on account of slip of pen the upper age limit is missing from the relevant rules, alternatively he argued that even if no upper age limit was provided under the rules for the post of Sub-Judge, the provisions contained in Notification dated 15-10-1997 shall apply which according to the learned counsel have overriding effect. Under this notification the upper age limit for all the people interested in the service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has been fixed at 35 years.
4. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that no age limit has been prescribed for the post of Sub-Judge/Civil Judge, as such his client was justified in law for appearing in the test and interview conducted by the Public Service Commission and on the basis of his merit, was rightly appointed by the Government as Sub-Judge. He relied upon the judgment of the High Court in cases titled Sagheer Ahmed and others v. Azad Government and others and Zaheer Baber Chughtai and others v. Azad Government and others on which reliance was placed by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court in the present case. According to him the judgment of the High Court in this case was assailed with the permission of the Court in appeal before this Court but while dismissing the appeal, this Court maintained the view point taken by the High Court that no upper age limit is prescribed for the post of Sub-Judge, therefore, Mansha Ghous was rightly appointed on the basis of his merit as Sub-Judge.
5. 1 have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The question which needs determination is, as to what is the upper age limit fixed under rules for the post of Sub-Judge/Civil Judge. It is an admitted fact that in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service Rules, 1984, the upper age limit was fixed as 35 years.
These rules were repealed in 1993 and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service Rules, 1993, where enacted. Under these rules no age limit was provided. These ruleswere repealed and replaced by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service Rules, 1999. Under these rules again no age limit has been provided. It is a settled proposition of law that the Courts are meant to interpret the law; they are not supposed to add or subtract anything in the relevant provisions of law.
Presently under rules no upper age limit has been provided for induction of suitable person as Sub- Judge.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions of the Government notification dated 15-10-1997, whereby the Government has prescribed 35 years upper age limit for all the services in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. This notification was also referred in Mansha Ghous case, Civil Appeal No.76 of 2001 titled Sagheer Ahmad and another v. Azad Government and others, decided on 30-4-2002. On behalf of the appellant before this Court but this objection was turned down by making following observation:-- "The learned counsel for the appellants, Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, laid a stress that in absence of such rules the notification issued by the Government on 15-10-1991 determining the age as 35 years for all the services in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be applicable. The assertion has no substance for the simple reason that in presence of the specific rules the provision of general notification shall have no application. In this regard reference is made to a case reported as Raja Muhammad Sohrab v. AJ&K Government and 6 others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1138; wherein this Court has held as follows:-- ............................................................................................... It is a settled principle of law that in order to interpret the provisions of a statute or rules, the Courts are not supposed to add or subtract anything in the relevant provisions. Even no word can be held to be redundant. Our aforesaid view is further strengthened by the fact that the post in dispute is basically a post for promotion' and the same cannot be filled in by initial recruitment as column No.5 of the rules is blank wherein the title of appointment by initial recruitment or by transfer is mentioned. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, is that this column has been left blank to be filled in when in future some need for the same arises. The argument, on the face of it, is not tenable as we have to interpret the law and rules as they are and not as they should be. In a case reported as Institute of Engineers, Pakistan Engineering Center v. Pakistan Engineering Council and another (1996 CLC 129) it was observed that it is well settled that a statute must be read as a whole and one provision contained therein cannot be interpreted in isolation of the other."
7. I am bound by the judgment of this Court. The wisdom of the legislature cannot be questioned.
Perhaps the upper age limit has not been provided for the reason that if a suitable person becomes available irrespective of his age, he may be accommodated in judicial service as Sub- Judge/Civil Judge.
' In view of above, finding no force in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.