' IQBAL HAMEED-UR- RAHMAN, C.J.--- Through the instant appeal filed under section 7(3) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, the appellant has made the following prayer:-- - "It is most respectfully prayed that this Court may very graciously be pleased to accept this appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 13-12-2010 and 26-01-2011 and direct the respondent Commission to correct the record in terms of State Subject of AJ&K. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to extend the consequential benefits to the appellant towards reallocation of occupational groups if so attracted."
2. Briefly the appellant has alleged that he is a permanent resident of Lahore. His ancestors had migrated from the area of District Jammu (presently occupied territory of India) to Pakistan, therefore, they were issued State Subject Certificates and ultimately to the appellant as well. That as per rules, the said refugees had been extended concession to retain another domicile of the District/Province where they have settled, in addition to the State Subjects. The refugees of Jammu and Kashmir had been allowed to compete the CSS Examinations held by respondent No,1 on the seats reserved for AJ&K candidates. The appellant had option either to claim or compete on seats reserved for AJ&K candidates by submitting the State Subjects which is to be considered as domicile of AJ&K or, on the basis of domicile from Province of Punjab, where, he is residing. The appellant submitted Application Form No,6830 in the year, 2004 for appearing in CSS examination.
In the relevant column, domicile of AJ&K was mentioned by the appellant. In the year 2005, Application Form No, 3440 was submitted by the appellant for appearing in CSS Examination-2005 and in the relevant column of domicile, he mentioned his domicile as that of the Punjab, however, the appellant could not qualify CSS Examination and then he submitted Application Form No,1812 in the year, 2008 for CSS Examination. The appellant succeeded in the Examination and was allocated Information Group on the basis of domicile of Punjab. Despite repeated applications, subjected to the respondent Commission, the appellant was not informed about the fate of the application form submitted in the year, 2004, whereafter, the appellant submitted an application, while appearing in person on 7-10-2010 before the Secretary Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad to know about the fate of the Application Form No,6830, which he had submitted for CSS Examination-2004.
In response to the said application, a letter dated 30-11-2010 was received by the appellant, wherein, it was mentioned that Application Form No,6830 was accepted by the respondent Commission. On receiving the said letter, the appellant submitted an application dated 13-12-2010, requesting therein for re-allocation of occupational group to him on the basis of domicile/State Subject of AJ&K (CSS 2008), which had already stood accepted in the year-2004. However, the application dated 13-12-2010 was wrongly treated by the respondent Commission as a representation. The said application was responded by the Commission vide letter dated 31-12- 2010, wherein it was mentioned that:---
(a) According to section 7(ii)(a) of FPSC Ordinance, 1977 a representation must be made within one month of the decision of the Commission. Your representation is late by almost one and half year.
(b) Rule I 7(ii) of Competitive Examination, 2008 specify that a representation fee has to be paid for making a representation. You have not paid the requisite fee.
(c) You were required to send your request to Establishment Division in terms of para-21 of "Instructions to Candidates of CE-2008" reproduced below:- ' After the final results of the Examinations have been announced by the Commission, all appointments on the results of the examination etc., should be addressed direct to the Cabinet Secretariat (Secretary, Establishment Division) and/or the respective Ministry/Division of the Government of Pakistan as the case may be."
' Thereafter, the appellant made another written request to the respondent Commission on 12-1- 2011, wherein, it was also requested that the same be treated as a review petition, however, the said application was not acceded to by the respondent Commission, hence, the instant appeal.
3. In response to the pre-admission notice issued to the respondents, report and parawise comments have been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent Commission passed the order dated 31-12-2010 erroneously, by treating the appellant's request dated 13-12-2010 as representation; that the respondent,Commission itself has not observed the requisite formalities while disposing of the representation, as no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant; that the Commission has erred in treating the application as time barred because the application submitted by the appellant was not against any order, rather, the same was for updating the Commission's record; that according to Rule 6(iii) of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2005 and 2008, the domicile once claimed and accepted by the Commission for the purpose of admission to an examination would be considered final, hence, the Commission is bound to implement the said rule in respect of the appellant as he while applying for CSS Examination in the year 2004 had mentioned his domicile as that of AJ&K, hence, on the basis of said application, after passing CSS Examination-2008, the appellant is entitled for re-allocation of occupational group: that the order dated 31-12-2010 is illegal, as the appellant has been condemned unheard and the same is also against the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2005 SCM R 622.
5. Conversely learned Deputy Attorney-General has argued that according to Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2008, domicile once adopted by a candidate cannot be changed; that the appellant had claimed the domicile of Punjab in Competitive Examinations 2005 and 2008 and had also joined service of Government of Punjab, on the basis of his Punjab domicile, therefore, he is not entitled for the change of his domicile from Punjab to AJ&K; that the present appeal is hit by limitation as under the provisions of clauses (a),
(b) and (d) of subsection (3) of section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, a candidate aggrieved by any decision of the Commission may file representation within a stipulated period of 30 days to the Commission and if aggrieved by the decision of the Commission on his representation, he has to file review petition before the Commission within a period of 15 days. If the candidate still considers himself aggrieved by the decision of the Commission, then the appeal may be filed within a period of 30 days before the High Court.
Learned Deputy Attorney-General prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy Attorney-General and perused the documents made available on record.
7. The appellant through the instant appeal seeks direction to the Federal Public Service Commission to extend him the benefit of domicile of AJ&K, which he had adopted while submitting Application Form No,6830 in the year 2004. In this regard, the appellant is relying upon Rule 6(d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2008. I have meticulously perused the Rule 6 of the Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2008. Rule 6 (iii) (d) and (e) of the Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2008 reads as under: "6. (i) .......................................................................................................................
(ii)
(iii) (a) ..................................................................................................................
(b) ........................................................................................................................
(c) ........................................................................................................................
(d) The domicile once claimed and accepted by the Commission for the purpose of admission to an examination, no change will be allowed at a subsequent examination or selection.
(e) The domicile claimed by a candidate and accepted by the Government at the time of entry into Government service shall be treated as final throughout his/her service career and no subsequent change in his/her domicile will be recognized for the purpose of terms and conditions of his/her service including his/her allocation and liability to transfer."
8. From the bare reading of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2008, it becomes crystal clear that the domicile claimed at the time of entry into Government service shall be treated as final throughout the service career. The appellant while appearing in the CSS Examination-2008 had claimed domicile of Punjab and even at the time of entry in Government Service, he kept relying upon the same domicile. Now the appellant by any stretch of imagination cannot ask for re-allocation of his occupational group on the basis of domicile of AJ&K, which he had not claimed/mentioned while submitting his application for CSS Examination-2008. If, for the sake of arguments, the appellant is allowed to change his domicile and on the said basis, he is allocated some other occupational group, it would amount to giving license to the government servants to even claim the change in their seniority, occupational groups and mode of their appointments at any stage. Such act would certainly create restlessness and chaos among the Government servants and would also amount to opening a new Pandora Box in the superstructure/rules of Civil Superior Service of Pakistan. If the appellant is allowed, change of his domicile at this stage and on the said basis he is allocated a new occupational group, it would disturb the seniority, allocation of groups and promotional aspects of the other officers of Civil Superior Service of Pakistan, who had entered in Government Service after qualifying CSS Examination-2008 and there would be an adverse effect on the whole structure of the civil service of the country. The appellant was allocated Information Group, on qualifying CSS Examination-2008 and after three years of his appointment he suddenly woke up to get the benefit of domicile of AJ&K, which was not claimed/mentioned by him while submitting his application for CSS Examination-2008. The very act of the appellant amounts to re-painting the whole picture in new colours, which under the law is not permissible. A Government Servant should be very conscious while providing his particulars at the time of his appointment. The prayer made by the appellant in the instant appeal amounts to recuperating the particulars declared by him at the time of obtaining his appointment. Certainly allowing such request to the appellant at this stage by the Court would amount to formulating new rules and regulations for the civil servants which is beyond the jurisdiction and functions of the courts, therefore, the Federal Public Service Commission being conscious of the above consequences, has rightly declined the request of the appellant and has rightly interpreted Rule 6(iii)(e) of Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS) 2008. In this regard, I am also fortified by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as Muhammad Shakoor and. Rehan Safdar v. Federal Public Service Commission and others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 381), wherein, it was held that:--- "7. To avoid such a situation the rules framers have provided in rule 6(iii)(i) that a person who entered into a Government service on the basis of any domicile certificate would not be allowed to change his domicile certificate in the future service. In this context it may be noted that learned High Court rightly observed that Government service does not mean that only the service of Federation of Pakistan but it also include the service of Provinces which have been accepted/joined by the appellants on the basis of the domicile certificate of that area. A perusal of rule 6(iii)(i) clearly indicates that once a person had expressed his intention to be a domicile of a particular area he cannot change his place of domicile certificate subsequently for the purpose of getting better benefits."
9 In the above perspective, the prayer of the appellant does not find any favour with this Court, rather, allowing the prayer of the appellant would create an atmosphere of uncertainty and chaos among the civil servants and would also give rise to multiplicity of litigations, as every civil servant would, one way or the other be effected by the same and would like to avail the opportunity of improving his occupational position in the civil service. Under these circumstances, there being no merit in this appeal, the same stands dismissed.