MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- This is an appeal under section 7(3) of the FPSC Ordinance, 1979.
2. The appellant appeared in CSS examination 2000 -and according to him having qualified the written examination is at No. 780 of the merit list. Against the Sind (U) quota of 20 seats he stands at serial No. 16. The grievance made out that in terms of Rule 6(iii)(a) of the Rules, applicable to the said examination his request for adjustment against said Sind (U) quota has been turned down for reasons that his father belongs by birth to Punjab. Since the appeal was admitted subject to objection of the limitation an application (C.M.3/02) has been filed for condonation of delay. The impugned order under appeal was passed by the respondent Commission on 6.2.2002 whereas the FAO has been filed in this Court on 24.5.2002. The prescribed period of limitation is 30 days. The grounds for condonation are that the petitioner proceeded to file Writ Petition No. 3493/2001 in this Court and as such the delay be condoned.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that notwithstanding the contents of the said Rule, since father of the appellant was domiciled in Sind (U) he was to be treated as domiciled in the said Province. The Officer present for respondent Commission presses the objection of limitation and further states that the matter has been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court. Refers to judgment dated 6.5.2003 of the apex Court.
4. I have examined the file of this case. Now what happen was that said Rule 6(iii)(a) applicable to CSS examination 2000 which is in the following terms: "6 (iii)(a) In the case of candidate whose father belongs by birth or by origin to a Pakistan Province/area it is immaterial where he/she has received his/her education or has resided, such a candidate will be considered for appointment against the quota of vacancies reserved for the Province/area to which his/her father belongs/belonged." was challenged in several Constitution petitions before the learned High Court Sind at Karachi. A Division Bench of the said learned Court proceeded to declare the said Rule to be ultra vires of Articles 15, 25 and 27 of the Constitution (2001 PLC CS 131). Civil Appeals Nos. 1318 to 1327/2002 were filed in the Honourable Supreme Court, in the course of hearing it was reported that pursuant to the findings recorded by the learned High Court Sind the said Rule 6 (iii)(a) has been amended and now reads as follows: "Rule 6 (iii)(a) Seats earmarked for prescribed . Provincial/regional quotas shall be allocated to candidates on the basis of the domicile certificate issued by the competent authority in accordance with the law and rules."
5. Now question arose as to how will the candidate appearing in examination 2000 on one hand and 2001 0n the other would be treated. The Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad (as his Lordship then was) observed as follows in para-6 of the judgment:- "6. The comparison of both the rules reproduced herein above, shows that under the subsequent rule, allocation of seats shall be made on the basis of domicile certificate issued by the competent authority in accordance with law and the rules. As. Far as the candidates who had appeared in Competitive Examination held in year 2000, we are informed that they have already been allocated the groups and one of them has also completed the training, and as rightly pointed out, appeals to their extent have become infructuous, because the rule has already been implemented and the matter has become past and closed."
However regarding candidates in 2001 examination it was observed that they will be governed by amended rule.
6. Having examined the said judgment, to my mind, the appellant remained to be governed by unamended Rule having appeared in the examination 2000 and as such it cannot be said that the impugned order of the respondent-commission suffered from any error or illegality.
7. As to the objection of the limitation prescribed period is 30 days from the date of order. There is no allegation that order was not conveyed to the appellant. Now in the said C.N. 3/02 provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act have been sought to be pressed. However, no foundations have been laid in the application or accompanying affidavit for applicability of the said provisions of law. It has not been stated as to when writ -petition was filed. However, it was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.4.2002 as per copy Annex-D. Now even if it be assumed that the writ petition was filed on a day following the impugned order dated 6.2.2002 and entire period of pendency of the Writ Petition is to be excluded still this FAO having been filed on 24.5.2002 is barred by one day and there is no explanation for delay. The C.M. Is accordingly rejected.
8. The FAO is accordingly dismissed on merits as well as being barred by the, without any order as to costs.