' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---Through this judgment we propose to decide I.-C.A. No,518-08, I.-C.A.
No,305-09 and writ petition No,19717-09.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent Punjab Public Service Commission soliciting applications for selection and appointment as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Shazia Munawar and Asif Iqbal submitted their applications, which were rejected on the ground that both the candidates did not possess the requisite experience of two years as practicing Advocates. Aggrieved, Shazia Munawar filed Writ Petition No,1563 of 2008 and Asif Iqbal filed Writ Petition No,1564 of 2008 which were heard together along with other connected matters and dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment impugned dated 6-11-2008.
Aggrieved, Shazia Munawar has filed I.-C.A. No,518 of 2008 and Asif Iqbal has filed I.-C.A. No,305 of 2009 against the said judgment dated 6-11-2008.
3. In the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6-11-2008 it was observed that in the peculiar circumstances the cases of the petitioners including that of the present appellants be considered by the Competent Authority. Whereafter, a formal reference has made by this Court to the Competent Authority i,e, the Chief Minister for relaxation of the rules which was turned down.
Asif Iqbal has now filed Writ Petition No,19717 of 2009 calling into question the order of the Competent Authority declining to relax the rules. As common and interconnected questions of law and facts are involved the aforesaid I.-C.A. No,518 of 2008, I.-C.A. No,305 of 2009 and Writ Petition No,19717 of 2009 are being heard together.
4. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are; that the advertisement in question issued by the respondent-Punjab Public Service Commission was published in the national press on 16-9-2007. The last date for the submission of the applications for appointment as Civil Judges- cum-Judicial Magistrates as mentioned therein was 20-10-2007. Both the appellants submitted their applications. Admittedly, both the appellants possess the requisite academic qualifications.
Shazia Munawar as per the record was enrolled as an Advocate on 3-10-2005 and joined the Lahore Bar Association on 4-10-2005. Asif Iqbal was enrolled as an Advocate on 21-10-2005 and joined the Bar Association, Pattoki on the same date. The minimum experience required for being eligible to be appointed was two years. Thus, both the appellants possessed two years minimum experience on the closing date of the filing of the applications i,e, 20-10-2007 but were short by a few weeks if the time is reckoned from the date of the publication of the advertisement i,e, 16-9- 2007. The recruitment, selection and appointment of Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates is governed by the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 and Rule 7 thereof sets forth the qualification including with reference to the aforesaid minimum experience. The respondent-Punjab Public Service Commission rejected the applications of the appellants by interpreting the aforesaid rule 7 to the effect that the requisite experience should be reckoned from the date of the publication of the advertisement while it was the case of the appellants that the closing date for submission of applications is relevant for the purposes of determination of the qualification qua experience.
5. In the above context it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 deals with the qualification while sub-rule (2) thereof prescribes the mode of proof of the qualification of requisite experience. It is contended that the qualification in this respect sets forth rule 7(1)(a).
(ii) he has actively practiced the profession of law for not less than two years after having been enrolled as an Advocate. and the candidate must possess the said qualification at the time of his appointment. It is common and consistent practice that respondent-Punjab Public Service Commission determines the qualification or absence thereof after receipt of formal applications by candidates. In fact it was also provided in the advertisement dated 16-9-2007 that all qualifications and conditions of the eligibility must be complete on or before the closing date of submission of applications. It is further contended that procedure of the respondent-Commission is governed by its Regulations i,e, Punjab Public Service Regulations, 1987 and Regulations Nos.8 and 9 thereof specifically provided that the existence of qualifications qua the eligibility are to be determined on the last date of submission of applications to the respondent-Commission. In the facts and circumstances, it is contended, that the appellants were duly qualified, hence, their applications could not have been rejected. It is further contended that different and harsher rules for determining eligibility could not be prescribed for selection and appointment as Civil Judges-cum Judicial Magistrates by insisting that their eligibility be determined on the date of advertisement rather than the closing date of the applications. In all other selections and appointments by the respondent-Commission, in view of Regulations 8 and 9 of the Regulations 1987 the closing date of the applications is the relevant date. So much so, that even under the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 the selection and appointments of Additional District and Sessions Judges are also effected through the Commission and in this behalf too the date of determining eligibility qua experience is the closing date of the submission of applications and not the date of the advertisement. It is the case of the appellants that they are being discriminated against without any intelligible differentia or legally valid classification. Hence, the appellants possess the requisite experience, therefore, are eligible and their applications could not be rejected. It is further contended that pursuant to the interim order of the learned Single Bench the appellants participated in the selection procedure of the written examination and interview and not only qualified the same but had obtained positions in the merit list entitling them to appointment. In the circumstances it is prayed that the appellants be appointed as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates pursuant to the selection process conducted following the advertisement dated 16-9-2007.
6. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. It is contended that in fact both the appeals are barred by limitation and should be dismissed on this short point alone. Adds that even on merits no case is made out. It is the stand of the respondents that rule 7 of Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 clearly and unequivocally prescribes that to prove that candidate possesses a requisite experience he is required to file an affidavit that he has been practicing the profession of law during the two years preceding the date of the advertisement. In view of the above, it is contended that The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the operative date for determining the period of experience is the date of advertisement and not the closing date for the submission of the applications.
7. In rebuttal Mr. Jahanzeb Bharwana, counsel for the appellant in I.-C.A. 518 of 2008 has contended that the appeal is not barred by limitation. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge was passed on 6-11-2008. The I.-C.A. Was filed on 26-11-2008 in the Office within time prescribed for filing of an I.-C.A.. The Office raised an objection that the case is incomplete. No specific objection was raised or communicated to the appellants, whereafter, the appeal was re-filed on 6-12-2008 and was entertained by the Office. In the circumstances, it is contended that appeal having originally been filed within the period of limitation, the same cannot be held to be time-barred. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Mst. Sabiran Bi v. Ahmad Khan and another 2000 SCMR 847, Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289, Naziran Begum and 2 others v. Saleh Muhammad and others 2002 SCMR 37 and Province of Punjab through District Collector Lodhran and 6 others v. Muhammad Khalid Khan 2005 CLC 1083.
8. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned counsel for the appellant in I.-C.A. No,305/09 stated that after the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 6-11-2008 had specifically observed that the case of the appellant should be considered by the Competent Authority and Reference in this behalf was made by this Court for relaxation of the rules. The thought has never crossed the mind of the appellant that the Executive Authority would not only disregard such observations and recommendations but act in defiance thereof. Hence, the appeal was not filed earlier. Even otherwise, it is contended that since identical questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals which are directed against the same composite order and one of such appeal is ex facie within time, the other appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation and must be adjudicated upon on merits. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works, Government of Pakistan, Karachi and others v. R.S. Roopchand and others PLD 1967 SC 479, Mehreen Zaibun Nisa v. Land Commissioner, Multan and others PLD 1975 SC 397 and Syed Imran Raza Zaidi, Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle-I, Gujranwala v. Government of the Punjab through Services, General Administration and Information Department, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others 1996 SCMR 645.
9. Adverting now to Writ Petition No,19717-09, in the alternative to the contentions raised that in fact the appellants were eligible, it is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that in terms of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994, the High Court is the appointing authority of all posts in the judicial service including Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates. Separation of the Judiciary from the Executive is the Command of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and in the above perspective once an opinion has been expressed by the High Court both on the judicial side as well as the administrative side specially with reference to selection and appointments to its own judicial service the Executive has no option to vehicle the same. If such powers are presumed to exist with the executive it would offend against the principle of separation and independence of judiciary, the provisions of the Constitution emphasizing the same and would be opposed to the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court laid down repeatedly in this behalf. It is the case of the petitioner that rule 12 of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 must be interpreted in the above perspective and the recommendations of the High Court envisaged thereof for all intent and purposes be binding on the Chief Minister i,e, the Competent Authority, who cannot sit in appeal thereupon. The reasons for relaxation of the rules is necessarily co-relatable to the recommendations of the High Court and have no nexus with the Chief Minister. In the instant case it is contended that not only observations for relaxation of the rules were made on the judicial side by this Court in order dated 6-11-2008 but 9. Specific reference was made in this behalf by the High Court after the matter had been duly considered by the Honourable Chief Justice and the Administrative Committee of this Court. In the circumstances, rules ought to have been relaxed and the decision to the contrary is not sustainable in law. It is also vehemently argued that in fact no decision was taken by the Chief Minister and the so-called decision was actually taken by the bureaucracy. In support of his contention, learned counsel has stated that copy of the decision has deliberately been cancealed from this Court and only reproduced in response to the petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sharaf Faridi and 3 others v. The Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Prime Minister of Pakistan and others PLD 1989 Karachi 404, Mian Khan v. N.-W.F.P. PLD 1993 SC 187 and Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh, Karachi and others v. Sharaf Faridi and others PLD 1994 SC 105.
10. Learned Additional Advocate-General has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated that the discretion vests with the Chief Minister under Rule 12 of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994. The discretion has been exercised and is supported by reasons mentioned therein and therefore, the order declining to relax the rules is in accordance with law. It is further contended that acceptance of the Constitutional petition would result in administrative anarchy.
11. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perased. It is appropriate to consider and deal first with the objection raised by the Additional Advocate-General, Punjab that the appeals at hand are barred by limitation. I.-C.A. No,518 of 2008 is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 6-11-2008. The appeal was filed in the Office of this Court on 26-11-2008 the 20th day i,e, the last day prescribed by limitation. The Office received the appeal but raised an objection thereto. A perusal of the objection sheet appended with the memo. Of appeal reveals that such objection was raised by the Office on 28-11-2008 to the effect that the appeal is incomplete. The appellant was given 7 days to remove the objection. Apparently, the appeal was re-filed on 6-12-2008 as is apparent from the record of the case.
12. It is clear and obvious that the appeal originally had been filed within time. The objection was raised which was removed. The only contention raised by the Additional Advocate-General is that the said objection was not removed within 7 days but perhaps within 9/10 days. However, the Additional Advocate-General has not pointed out as to when and if the list of objection cases was in fact displayed by the Office or when and if the counsel filing the appeal was informed. Be that as it may, the question of limitation in such-like cases has been finally put at rest by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Sabiran Bi (supra) wherein it has been held as follows:-- "10. Thus, in view of above discussions we are inclined to hold that once a suit, appeal or revision has been presented before the authorized officer of the Court within the prescribed period of the limitation, it cannot be treated barred by time for the reason that the office has noted defects in the proceedings which have not been removed by the concerned party or his Advocate, and in such-like situation the presiding officer of the Court at the best can consider the maintainability of proceedings in view of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 or identical provisions available in the Code of Civil Procedure or the law under which the proceedings were instituted. It is also important to note that parties/Advocates are also not absolved from their duty to remove the office objections within the stipulated period prescribed by the concerned authorized officer subject to the condition that specific notice has been served upon the party or Advocate to do the needful.
Even if after notice the defect is not removed the case shall be listed for non-prosecution before the presiding officer who may in his discretion allow time to comply with objections of office".
13. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Honourable Supreme A Court of Pakistan it is clear and obvious that the appeal at hand having been filed within the prescribed period cannot be held to be barred by limitation. The Office should have placed the same before the Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the appellants cannot be accused of being contumacious or negligent, as the time taken for removal of the unclear objection was only 2/3 days more than the time allowed specially when it is not on record as to when or if notice in this behalf was issued to the appellant nor when and if the list of objection case was actually displayed by the Office. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that I.-C.A. No,518 of 2008 is not barred by limitation and has been filed within time.
14. I.-C.A. No,305 of 2009 is also directed against the order dated 6-11-2008 involved legal and factual questions which are identical to those arises through I.-C.A. No,518 of 2008 and in such eventuality, it is settled law that even if one appeal or proceedings are barred by limitation it should be heard and decided on merits where connected appeal or proceedings involving identical legal questions arising from the same order has been filed within time. We are fortified in our view by the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Mehreen Zaibun Nisa and Syed Imran Raza Zaidi (supra). In view of the above we have no hesitation in holding that I.-C.A. No,518 of 2008 in the peculiar circumstances of this case cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation and must necessarily be decided on merit.
15. Adverting now to the merits of the appeals at hand, the same requires the interpretation of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 more particularly rule 7 thereof which is reproduced here as under:-- "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;
(i) 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".
16. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the appellants possess the requisite academic qualification. It is also an admitted fact between the parties that the appellants are practicing advocates duly enrolled with their respective Bar Associations, which is a condition precedent for competition of having the necessary experience. It is also obvious that if the period of experience is calculated on the basis of the closing day of the submission of applications both the appellants possess their requisite experience and were eligible to be considered for appointment as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates. However , if the date for calculating the experience of the appellants is the date of publication of the advertisement as is the case of the respondents then perhaps the appellants would not be eligible having not acquired the requisite experience. The date of computation of the experience is the real matter in controversy between the parties.
17. In order to resolve the aforesaid legal controversy, it would be necessary not only to examine the provisions of Rule 7 in greater detail but also in the perspective of the other provisions of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994, the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978 and rules and regulations made thereunder including the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 1987.
Rule 7 of the Punjab. Judicial Service Rules, 1994 reproduced above reveals that it pertains to qualifications which must necessarily be possessed by the candidates seeking to be appointed as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates. The said Rule consists of a substantive provision followed by an Explanation. At the very outset it is noticed that the substantive provision is couched in negative term to the effect that no person shall be appointed unless he possessed the qualification mentioned therein, therefore, on a bare reading it appears that the qualifications are relevant at the time of appointment and not prior thereto. However, since the Rule provide for a formal application which need to be sifted so that ineligible candidates can be separated from the pack, therefore, by way of administrative convenience alone a cut away date has been prescribed for determining the eligibility of the candidates by way of Regulation 11 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 1987 which reads as follows:-- "Eligibility of a candidate shall be determined in accordance with the advertisement for the post, service rules governing appointments to the relevant post and such other ancillary instructions issued by Government and or Commission from time to time. For this purpose for all candidates the age, qualifications and experience etc. As on the closing date fixed for candidates from within the country will be taken into account".
The aforesaid regulations leave no room for doubt that for the purpose of selection and appointment through the Punjab Public Service Commission, the relevant date prescribed by law for calculating experience is the closing date for the submission of application. This principle is applicable to selection and appointments for all posts where the process for selection is effected through the Punjab Public Service Commission including admittedly appointments of Additional District and Sessions Judges under the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994.
18. The aforesaid substantive provision is followed by an Explanation which is being relied upon by the respondents. "Explanation" in a statutory instrument has a peculiar status for the purpose of interpretation.
19. A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Manj Khan v. The Controlling Authority, Lyallpur and others PLD 1968 Lahore 202 held "for one thing the Explanation is not a substantive provision". This Court in a judgment reported as Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs and another PLD 1969 Lahore 228 held as follows:-- "The object of adding an Explanation to a statutory provision is only to facilitate its proper interpretation and to remove any possible confusion or misunderstanding about its true meaning.
It does not per se create or extinguish any liability which has to be spelled out only from the main provision sought to be interpreted with the assistance of the Explanation. In other words, the Explanation is to be relied upon only as a useful guide or in aid to the construction of the main provision".
' The aforesaid portion has been quoted with approval and the dictum laid down thereby reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Muhammad Hussain Patel v. Habib Wali Muhammad and others PLD 1981 SC 1. This Court in a judgment reported as Arshad Akram and Co.
And 8 others v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and 5 others PLD 1982 Lahore 109 held as follows:-- "It is well-established that an Explanation does not change the scope of the main section which it is supposed to explain".
20. An over view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as by this Court referred to above makes it clear and obvious that an Explanation does not form a substantive part of the provision to which it is appended. All rights and liabilities can only be spelt out from the substantive provision and not from the Explanation which cannot be pressed into service to vary or change the scope of the main provision. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case the qualifications for appointment as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates can only be spelt out from the substantive part of Rule 7 and not from the Explanation. Therefore, the experience necessary for such candidates is 2 years. Since the recruitment has been effected through Punjab Public Service Commission, therefore, the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 1987 are squarely attracted with the result that the critical date for calculating experience is the closing date of the submission of the applications. The Explanation to Rule 7 cannot be used to vary or increase the experience required from 2 years to 2 years and 34 days i,e, the effect of the cut away date being the date of advertisement rather than the closing date.
21. Furthermore, the explanation does not even purport to enlarge the period of the experience nor attempts to change or vary the same. In fact it only prescribes the mode of proof required to establish that the candidate possesses the requisite experience. We are further reinforced by our view by the fact that the Additional Advocate-General was unable to offer any explanation logical or otherwise for the alleged departure with reference to the effective date for calculating the eligibility of the candidates for Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates as opposed to the effective date for all other candidates processed through the Commission including candidates for appointments as Additional District and Sessions Judges.
22. In view of the matter we have no hesitation in holding that the critical date for calculating the experience is the last date for the submission of the form and not the date of the advertisement.
Therefore, both the appellants were eligible to be considered for appointment as Civil Judges- cum-Judicial Magistrates and the rejection of their forms/applications was illegal and not sustainable in law.
23. In the instant case the learned Single Judge vide order dated 6-11-2008 after noticing the unexplained purported departure of the cut away date for calculation of the experience of the appellants and after viewing that the appellants pursuant to an interim order of the learned Single Judge had participated in the selection process of written test and interview and had not only cleared the same but had obtained positions on merit entitling them for appointment as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates observed that their case be considered by the Competent Authority in the light thereof. Pursuant to the said observation the matter apparently was placed before the Honourable Chief Justice and the Administration Committee of this Court which made a reference to the Competent Authority (the Chief Minister) in respect of the appellants in term of rule 12 of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994. The said Rule reads follows:-- "12. The Chief Minister may, on the recommendation of the High Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the rules in any individual case of hardship, to the extent prescribed by him".
23. The Competent Authority turned down their request which has been challenged through a Constitutional Petition bearing Writ Petition No,19717 of 2009. The order of the Competent Authority has not been filed by the respondents, however, its operative part has been reproduced in para. 5 of the parawise comments submitted on behalf of the Government of the Punjab. It is appropriate to reproduce the same as follows : "(c) As per rule 12 of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 relaxation may be granted in an individual case of hardship for reasons to be recorded in writing. Hardship has neither been established nor is evidence in this case rather ineligible persons have challenged the Government and are pressing for grant of relaxation which if allowed would amount to strangulation of the whole process of holding competitive examinations.
(d) Observance of rule may hurt only the three petitioners but relaxation [may hurt] many which would earn bad name for the Government".
24. Though we have already held that the appellants were eligible for appointment as. Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates, we are constrained to examine this aspect of the matter. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 proceeds on the premises of Trichotomy of powers with the independence of Judiciary and its separation from the Executive as one of its Salient Features. No Statute or Rule or Regulation made thereunder can be interpreted so as to offend against the aforesaid principle of Independence of Judiciary lest its very validity and constitutionality become doubtful. In matters relating to selection, appointments and promotion's of members of the judicial service this Independence needs to be guarded even more a jealousy.
In this behalf the observation of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Abdul Matin Khan and 2 others v. N.W.F.-P through Chief Secretary and 2 others PLD 1993 SC 187 is of great relevance and is reproduced as follows: "Although a case is pending before us from Sindh High Court on question of separation of judiciary and another regarding independence of judiciary, vis-a-vis the transfer of High Court Judges to the Federal Shariat Court, this case presents a third feature regarding both: the independence and separation of judiciary. If power of the Government and its functionaries to override the assessm ent, opinion and directions of the High Court with regard to its own subordinate judiciary in matter of their promotions is upheld, the very fabric of independence and separation of judiciary is considerably damaged. It is not necessary to spell out the detailed consequences in the context of our Constitutional set-up. It would suffice to say that besides the contravention of some of the commands in the specific Constitutional provisions including Article 175 thereof but also that contained in the Objectives, Resolution; which, inter alia, provides that 'the independence of judiciary shall be fully secured', would be flouted."
25. The aforesaid observation leaves no room for doubt that matter pertaining to members of the judicial service and their selection, appointments, and promotions the views and opinions of this Court must take precedence over any purported opinion of the Executive. It is in the above perspective that Rule 12 reproduced above must necessarily be interpreted. In the instant case not only specific observations were made by this Court on the judicial side but a reference was made by the Chief Justice and the other Judges forming part of the Administration Committee of this Court. The competent Authority should have given deference to such observations rather than override the same, specially as this Court was the appointing authority of the appellants.
26. The afore-quoted decision of the Competent Authority even otherwise is devoid of any cogent reasons and on closer examination reveals a Freudian slip which discloses the real reason for turning down the case of the appellants as is clear from the phrase "ineligible persons have challenged the Government". It appears that the appellants are being punished for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court through Constitutional petitions challenging the rejection of their applications. This can hardly be termed as a valid reason by any stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps, some body has lost the sight of the fact that all powers, authority and jurisdictions exercised by the Executive, Legislature or the Judiciary in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are a Sacred Trust and not a Divine Right and the people in respect whereof I such powers, authority and jurisdictions are exercised are citizens and not subjects. The decision of the Competent Authority, in the facts and circumstances of the case has not only lost its relevance but is also neither acceptable nor sustainable in law.
27. In view of what has been stated above, the I.-C.A. No,518 of 2008 and I.-C.A. No,305 of 2009 are hereby accepted. The impugned judgment dated 6-11-2008 is hereby set aside. The appellants are held to be eligible for selection and appointment as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates through process undertaken by the Commission pursuant to its advertisement dated 16-9-2007.
The appellants have already completed the process and have passed the examination and were on the merit list entitling them for appointment, therefore, the respondents are directed to appoint the appellants as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates w,e,f, the date other candidates who were appointed in accordance with the process undertaken pursuant to their advertisement dated 16- 9-2007.
28. Writ Petition No,19717 of 2009 is also disposed of in the light of the observations made in respect thereof hereinabove.