' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- A Writ Petition was preferred on behalf of petitioners in the Lahore High Court, Lahore with the following prayer:-- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may very kindly be accepted and the Rule 7(1)(a) of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 may very kindly be declared ultra vire, discriminatory, violative to fundamental rights of the petitioners and the same may very graciously be struck down and the respondents may very kindly be directed to equate the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 with the Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 for the purpose of eligibility/ qualification for the posts of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrates and the respondents may very kindly be further directed to allow the staff of the Supreme Court, Lahore High Court or courts subordinate to Lahore High Court including the petitioners to compete for the posts of Civil Judges- cum-Judicial Magistrates, in the Province of Punjab, in the interest of justice.
' It is further prayed that during pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No,1 may very kindly be directed to provisionally allow the petitioners to appear in the written examination and viva voce/selection process for 229 posts of Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates, to meet the ends of justice.
' Any other relief which this honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also very kindly be granted to the petitioners".
2. Being aggrieved from dismissal of Writ Petition by means of judgment impugned this petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, learned Advocate Supreme. Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioners and contended that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to support the said contention it is submitted that the provisions as enumerated in Rule-8(1)(b) of the Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 could have been made applicable to the case of petitioners whereby two years law practice is not required for the employees of the Supreme Court, High Court of Sindh or courts subordinate to the High Court of Sindh who are eligible to compete for the post of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate without having such experience. It is next contended that under Rule 7(1)(a) of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 a candidate is required to have two years law practice for appointment against the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate which is not only in violation of the provisions as enumerated in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan but is unreasonable and illogical and more so that the exemption given to the employees of various Courts in Sindh should have been given to the employees working in different courts of the Province of Punjab. It is next contended that learned single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore in chambers has misinterpreted and misconstrued the principle of reasonable classification and differentia and there should have been no difference in rules framed by the Province of Sindh and Province of Punjab in view of the similarity of duties being performed by the employees in various courts in both the Provinces.
' We have carefully examined the contentions made on behalf of petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 and the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994. The requisite experience of two years law practice as an advocate has been prescribed in Rule 7(1)(a) of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 and no exemption whatsoever given to any class of employees irrespective of the fact as to whether they are performing their duties in any court or otherwise. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, learned Advocate Supreme Court was asked at the outset how Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 can be made applicable in the Province of Punjab but no satisfactory answer could be given. It is worth-mentioning that the Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred upon Government of Sindh under section 26 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 have been framed by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers as conferred upon him under section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Rules applicable in Province of Punjab and Sindh were enacted under two different Statutes and in view of the peculiar circumstances of each Province. The rules made in one Province cannot be made applicable to the other Province unless so adopted. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, A learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners failed to mention any such order in this regard.
5. We are not persuaded to agree with learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners that the principle of reasonable classification or differentia has been misinterpreted or misconstrued for the simple reason that Article 25 of the. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not prohibit reasonable classification with regard to operation of law. In this regard reference can be made to the cases titled Pak. Petroleum Workers Union v. Ministry of Interior (1991 CLC 13), Fauji Foundation v. Shamimur Rehman (PLD 1983 SC 457), Ziaullah Khan v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1989 Lah.554). It is well-settled by now that "equality clause does not prohibit different laws for those differently circumstanced provided a rational standard is laid down to guide the discretion of the relevant Authority to choose the appropriate law. A State may classify persons and objects for the purpose of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons or objects within a class. In fact almost all legislation involves some kind of classification whereby some people acquire rights or suffer disabilities which others do not. Expression "equal protection of laws" does not place embargo on power of State" to classify either in adoption of police laws, or tax laws, or eminent domain laws" rather gives to State exercise of wide scope of discretion, of course, nullifying "what is without any reasonable basis". The State has the power of what is known as "classification" on the basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject dealt with.
Classification may be due to geographical situation or it may be based on territorial, economic, communal and other similar considerations. The Constitution itselftontemplates passing of different laws for different provinces by their respective legislatures. The doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems. It, therefore, should have the power to make a reasonable classification of persons and things, to whom different treatment may be accorded, provided there is legitimate basis for such difference the State can make laws to attain special objects, and the administrative authorities may make classification, in pursuance of such laws. But the classification should not be arbitrary and capricious and must rest on reasonableness and have a fair nexus and a just relation with the need for which classification is made". Ziaullah Khan v.
Government of Punjab (PLD 1989 Lah. 554), Akram Khan v. State (PLD 1976 Lah. 1224), Fauji Foundation v. Shamimur Rehman (PLD 1983 SC 457), I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041), Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 899), Balochistan Bar Association v.
Government of Balochistan (PLD 1991 Quetta 7), Kathi Raning v. State of Saurashtra (AIR 1952 SC 123), Dhirendra v. Supdt. And Remember (AIR 1954 SC 424), Zain Noorani v. Secretary of National Assembly (PLD 1957 Kar.1), Government of Punjab Health Deptt. v. Naila Begum (PLD 1987 Lah. 336), Government of Punjab and others v. 'Mst. Naila Begum (PLD 1988 Lah. 331), Charanjit Lal v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 41), State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC 75), Rehman Shagoo v. State of J&K (1958 Cri L Jour 885), TK Abraham v. State of Tra. Co (AIR 1958 Ker. 129), PLR 1957(1) 743).
6. By no stretch of imagination, Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 can be made applicable in the Province of Punjab for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. And leave refused.