MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. --- This judgment shall decide W.P. No. 1563/08, W.P. No. 1564/08 and W.P.
No. 1694/08 as common questions are involved.
2. In order to appoint Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates in the Province, the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as the respondent) issued an advertisement in the national press on 16.9.2007 (Annex-A). The requisite and relevant information was provided in the said advertisement. The closing date for receipt of applications was fixed on 20.10.2007. The petitioners filed applications. These were rejected on the ground that the petitioners herein do not possess the requisite two years' experience. The petitions were admitted to hearing and notices were issued. Written statements have been filed by the respondent and it has been pleaded that the applications have been rejected correctly in accordance the applicable Rules.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that all of them have the requisite experience by the closing date stipulated in the advertisement even from the date of enrollment with the local Bar Associations. Mr. Muhammad Irfan Khan, Advocate representing the petitioner in W.P. No. 1694/08 has additionally argued that the Rule 7.10 read with Rule 7.12 are ultra vires of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973 and as such cannot be relied upon by the respondent. The further contention is that his client was also enrolled as an advocate of the High Court on 3.11.2006 and this fact alone equips her with requisite experience.
4. Mr. Tahir Munir Malik, Addl. A.G. On the other hand, refers to Rule 7 of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 to urge that active practice of the profession of law for two years must precede the date of advertisement. According to him, Section 27 of the said Act 1973 itself makes the said provision subject to the provisions of Act and Rules to be made thereunder and as such the said Rules are intra vices. With reference to the relevant data the learned Law Officer urges that none of the petitioners, had the requisite experience on the date of advertisement i.e. 16.9.2007. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal, Advocate rejoins to urge that the said Rule-7 being relied upon by the learned Law Officer ought to be struck down being male fide, as according to regulations framed by the respondent the date of determination of qualification is closing date stipulated in the advertisement i.e. 20.10.2007.
5. I have gone through these files .With the assistance of the learned counsel and learned Law Officer and have considered the respective submissions noted above. I have already noted above that the advertisement was published on 16.9.2007 and closing date for applications was 20.10.2007. Before I proceed further, I deem it proper to state here some relevant dates vis-a-vis each of the petitioners as follows:---
(i) W.P. No. 1563/08 (Shazia Munawar). She was enrolled as an Advocate^ of the subordinate Courts on 3.10.2005 and joined the Lahore Bar Association on 4.10.2005.
(ii) W.P. No. 1564/08 (Asif Iqbal). He was enrolled as an Advocate of the subordinate Courts on 21.10.2005 and joined the Br Association Pattoki on the same date.
(i.e) W.P. No. 1694/08 (Tram Sehr). She was enrolled as an Advocate of the subordinate Courts on 20.9.2004. She joined the Lahore Bar Association on 15.12.2005. She was enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court on 3.11.2006.
6. The relevant portion of Rule 7 of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 is as follows:--- "7. Qualifications:- (1) No person shall be appointed to a post in the service by initial recruitment unless:---
(a) in case of appointment to a post of Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate: he possesses a degree in Law from a recognized University entitling him to practice the profession of law or is a Member of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland; and
(ii) he has actively practiced the profession of law for not less than two years after having been enrolled as an Advocate.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause---
(i) The expression "practiced the profession of law" shall (include any period of Government service by a person as--
(a) District Attorney, a Deputy District Attorney or an Assistant District Attorney; or
(b) Full time prosecutor authorized to conduct prosecution on behalf of the Government; and
(ii) to prove active practice the candidate shall declare by an affidavit that---
(a) he had been actively practicing the profession of law during the two years preceding the date of advertisement; and
(b) during this period he had been engaged himself in any other whole time service, business or, as the case may be, occupation for gain."
There is no manner of doubt in my mind that Rules specifically provided that cut of date for the purposes of calculating two years' experience is the date of advertisement. I may note here that advertisement itself provides in clause (e) under the heading "following documents must be .Attached with application form" that the candidates are to submit an affidavit that they have been actively practicing profession of law during two years preceding the date of advertisement. Section 27 of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973 provides that a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate of High Court who fulfills, inter alia, the condition that he has practiced as an advocate before the subordinate Courts in Pakistan for a period of not less than two years. However, this is subject to the Rules to be framed under the said Act. The Punjab Bar Council in exercise of authority under Section 56 of the said Act, 1973 has framed Punjab Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Rules, 1974. Rule 7.10 provides that no person shall practice as an advocate unless he is member of a recognized Bar Association. Rule 7.12 is as follows:--- "7.12. It will be sufficient compliance with the requirement of Rule 7.10 if within six months of being enrolled as an Advocate a person applies for being admitted as a Member of such Bar Association and his application has not been dismissed."
Reading the afore-noted two provisions together it would be necessary for a person to have applied for being admitted as Member of a Bar Association within 6 months of being enrolled as an advocate subject to the decision of the said application.
7. It will, thus, be seen that the said statutory provision places a- bar upon an advocate to practice the profession of law unless and until he has complied with the provisions of Rule 7.10 read with 7.12.
8. Nothing turns on the said contention of Mr. Muhammad Irian Khan, Advocate, as learned Law Officer has correctly pointed out that Section 27 of the said Act, 1973 itself makes the provision thereof subject to the Rules to be framed under the Act. So far as the afore-noted Contention of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal, Advocate as to the striking down of the relevant portion of Rule 7 of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 inasmuch as the relevant date has been fixed as a date of advertisement is concerned, he has referred to judgment dated 30.11.2001 of this Court in W.P. No. 523/2001 whereby clause (b) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, 1994 inasmuch as it denies concession of extended upper age limit to a practicing lawyer was declared to be irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary and thus violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. This judgment proceeds on wholly different premises i.e. Difference of upper age limit for practicing lawyer vis-a-vis the government servant without there being any reasonable differentia.
9. So far as the said provision of Rule 7 is concerned, there is no element of discrimination as the date has been prescribed for all candidates. The said contention accordingly is overruled.
10. For whatever has been discussed above, I find that none of the three petitioners possess the requisite experience in accordance with the said Rules on the date of advertisement i.e. 16.9.2007.
11. After having examined the said legal question involved in these cases I may note here that under the interim orders issued by this Court all the petitioners appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the respondent. All of them have passed the said examination both written and viva voce. I have also examined their answer sheets as also the proceedings of the interview, I am told by all present that 106 seats were to be filled. A total numbers of 15,10 applications were filed. Only 84 candidates passed the written test and after interview a total number of 47 candid rtes including the three petitioners were finally selected. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1563/08 is at No. 11, the petitioner in W.P. No 1564/08 is at No. 14 while petitioner in. W.P. No. 1694/08 is at No 28 -of the merit list of the total number of 17 candidates. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of these cases while dismissing all three writ petitions, this Court is constrained to observe that the cases of these three petitioners may be considered by the competent authority accordingly. .