' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Through this petition, leave is sought against the judgment, dated 14-4-2008 passed by a learned Judge of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad vide which he allowed Writ Petition No,918 of 2005 filed by Irfan Tariq respondent No,1 and directed the Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan to re-determine the quota of P.S.P. Seats for N.- W.F.P. For the C.S.S. Competitive Examination-2003, by considering the P.S.P. Seats to be 13 and the allocation of service of respondent-writ petitioner be decided accordingly. It was further held that there was no justification for deducting one P.S.P. Seat from the quota of the said year (2003) on the stated ground that it had earlier allocated the said seat to Syed Muhammad Ameen who had domicile from N.-W.F.P. (who had appeared for C.S.S. Examination for the year 2001).
2. Facts giving rise to the instant petition are that respondent Irfan Tariq appeared in C.S.S. Competitive Examination for the year 2003, he stood at Sr.No,12 in the overall merit position and at Sr.No,2 in the candidates from N.-W.F.P. Domicile. Another candidate who was at Sr.No,3 of the overall merit list figured at Sr.No,1 in the merit of candidates from N.,-W.F.P. Despite this result respondent-petitioner was allocated Customs and Excise Group. He moved the Federal Public Service Commission but without success and he was rather advised by the Commission to take up the matter with the Government of Pakistan in Establishment Division. The Establishment Division was approached but it too expressed its inability to redress respondent-petitioner's grievance and the reason given was that the P.S.P. Seat for the said year had been utilized/deducted and had been given to one Syed Muhammad Ameen who appeared in C.S.S. Competitive Examination for the year 2001 on account of a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which was upheld by this Court. Respondent thereafter moved the learned High Court which culminated in the impugned judgment dated 14-4-2008.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that the learned High Court while passing the impugned judgment did not appreciate that the respondent-petitioner had a right on merit only against those posts which were advertised and available for filling out of the successful candidates of N.-W.F.P. And P.S.P. Posts and not against the posts which had not been advertised. It was further submitted that respondent had no vested right to claim a specific seat or a specific service. Dilating on the deduction of one seat from the quota reserved for N.-W.F.P. In Police Service for the year 2003, the learned counsel submitted that the Commission had to accommodate Syed Muhammad Ameen (respondent No,3) on account of the Court order and the said one seat having been consumed was not available for the year 2003 and respondent had rightly been refused by the Department.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No'.1, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the department does not dispute the merit position, the fact that in terms of the original quota, respondent Irfan Tariq had a right to be inducted into P.S.P. In terms of his first choice but the only ground for declining the seat in question was that the same stood utilized for a candidate who had appeared in the C.S.S. Competitive Examination for the year 2001 pursuant to judgment of the Peshawar High Court which was upheld by this Court. This ground, learned counsel contended, is neither sustainable in law nor equity because there is nothing in the rules which could enable the Commission to proceed in the manner it did nor there was any direction in the judgment passed in favour of the candidate in question i,e, Syed Muhammad Ameen. He referred to an office letter from the Federal Public Service Commission (bearing No,F.2/4/2002-CSS, dated 24-3-2004) addressed to the Establishment Division to contend that after the judgment of the Peshawar High Court on 12-9-2003, the Commission had requested "to allocate the candidates accordingly by creating a vacancy one each of P.S.P. And I.T.G. In Competitive Examination, 2001".
There was no advice to the effect that the afore-referred candidates be accommodated by subtracting seats from the N.-W.F.P. Quota for the year 2003. In support of the submissions made, the learned counsel relied on Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tayyab 2006 SCM R 326.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment as also the precedent case-law to which reference has been made at the Bar.
6. Admittedly respondent Irfan Tariq stood at Sr.No,12 in the overall merit and at Sr.No,2 of the candidates of N.-W.F.P. Domicile in the merit list prepared for C.S.S. Competitive Examination, 2003.
It is not denied that if for the afore-referred year the N.-W.F.P. Quota for Police Service of Pakistan had not been reduced by allowing one seat to Syed Muhammad Ameen (who had appeared in the year 2001), respondent Irfan Tariq would have been entitled to get P.S.P. Service as the same was his first choice. The only reason given to deprive him of the said seat was that the same stood utilized in advance for Syed Muhammad Ameen who had appeared in C.S.S. Competitive Examination, 2001 as he had domiciled from N.-W.F.P. And there was a Court order. It was admitted on Court query by petitioner's learned counsel that in the judgment passed by the Peshawar High Court in case of Syed Muhammad Ameen, there was neither any direction nor observation to accommodate him by subtracting a seat from N.-W.F.P. Quota in advance i,e, from the N.-W.F.P.
Quota in C.S.S. Examination, 2003. Petitioner's learned counsel could not refer to any rule or even an office order which could enable the Commission to proceed in the manner in which it did for accommodating the said candidate (Syed Muhammad Ameen). As against this, respondent's learned counsel has placed on record copy of Memo. No,F2/4/2002- CSS, .Dated 24-3-2004 addressed to the Establishment Division, Islamabad (after the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 12-9-2003 and upheld by this Court vide order, dated 10-10-2003, in para.5 of which letter it was requested that the two candidates namely Syed Muhammad Ameen (N.-W.F.P.) and Mushtaq Ali Wagan (Sindh) be accommodated by creating, "a-vacancy one each of P.S.P. And I.T.G in Competitive Examination, 2001". The Commission never requested or advised the Establishment Division to subtract a seat from N.-W.F.P. Quota for Police Service of Pakistan in advance i,e, for C.S.S. Competitive Examination for the year 2003. This abstraction/deduction which neither had the backing of law, rules or any departmental instructions or order, had the effect of depriving the respondent of a seat which otherwise would have accrued to him. The procedure adopted is against the law declared by this Court in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tayyab 2006 SCM R 326 wherein at page 334, it was observed as under:--- "It is true that rule 11 of the Competitive Examination, 2002 gives the appellants a right to fill smaller or larger number of vacancies than announced but it does not authorize them to reduce the quota/ratio allocated to AJ&K region and further it does not authorize the appellants to allocate seat in advance to a candidate who had appeared in the year 1994-95 a seat which would fall vacant in the year 2002 after a period of six years when it has also not been shown by the appellants date in the year 1994-95 fraction carried over in the year 1995 was more than half so as to give said candidate extra a seat to be subtracted from the same quota in the ensuing year. The ensuing year would not amount that it could be subtracted in the year 2002 but prior to it there was six years/period wherein the said seat could have been subtracted. The appellants have not shown any reasonable cause or justification in the said respect consequently the action of reduction of ratio/quota in the year 2002 which hit the respondent's entire career harsh was a mala fide action on their part. It appears to be against law and equity and fairness that a candidate who was entitled to a seat on the basis of quota/ratio in the year 2002 was being deprived because six years earlier a candidate was allocated a seat which could not be subtracted during six years period viz. From 1995 to 2001 but was it subtracted in the year 2002. It may also be observed that Rules as well as Srl.No,29 of ESTACODE, 1989 cannot override the provisions of Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, where safeguards against the discrimination in Service of Pakistan have been provided to the citizens of this country where under proviso-I of Article 27 reads:--- "Provided that, for a period not exceeding (forty) years from the commencing day, posts may be reserved for persons belonging to any class or area to secure their adequate representation in the 0-service of Pakistan."
' Quota reserved cannot be allowed to be reduced by reducing the number of posts reserved for the persons belonging to any class of area for the year in which competitive examination was to be held."
7. For what has been discussed above and the law laid down by this Court earlier, the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court does not reflect any illegality to warrant interference.
The petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.