IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, C.J. - By this single judgment both the captioned FAOs are being decided as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals.
2. In FAO No. 53 of 2011, the appellant has made the following prayers:--
(i) Declare that the impugned order dated 15.7.2011 is null and void being violative of Articles 25 and 27 of Constitution of Pakistan and to have been issued with discriminatory approach.
(ii) Direct the respondents to issue result of the appellant and if he has succeeded in written test, then allow him to appear in interview of the Section Officers Promotional Examination, 2010 at par with the employees, of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib, Federal Service Tribunal, Intelligence Bureau and civilian employees of Armed Forces.
3. In FAO No. 54 of 2011, the appellant Zaheer Ahmad Khan has made the following prayers:--
(i) Declare that the impugned order dated 15.7.2011 is null and void being violative of Articles 25 and 27 of Constitution of Pakistan and to have been issued with discriminatory approach.
(ii) Direct the respondents to issue result of the appellant and if he has succeeded in written test, then allow him to appear in interview of the Section Officers Promotional ^Examination, 2010 at par with the employees of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib, Federal Service Tribunal, Intelligence Bureau and civilian employees of Armed Forces.
4. In FAO No. 53 of 2011, the appellant, Abdul Rehman has mentioned that he was initially appointed as Traffic Analyst (BPS-14) in the Directorate General Inter- Services Intelligence on 14.5.2001.
Respondent No. 1 i.e. Federal Public Service Commission got published an advertisement for the Section Officers Promotional Examination, 2010 in the newspaper requiring that all civil servants, who have put in minimum eight (8) years service in BPS-11 to BPS-16 in the President's Secretariat, Senate Secretariat, National Assembly Secretariat, Federal Secretariat, Attached Departments, Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat, Federal Service Tribunal, Federal Public Service Commission, Intelligence Bureau and also the civilian employees of the Pakistan Armed Forces Headquarters and their lower formations are eligible to appear in the said examination. In response to the said advertisement, the appellant applied to the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) for appointment to the post of Section Officer (BPS- 17), in the Federal Government Departments, Islamabad. The Federal Public Service Commission issued call letter for written examination to the appellant. The appellant appeared in the written test but his result has been withheld and not announced till today. Subsequently, the appellant was shocked to receive Office Memorandum dated 14.4.2011, whereby, it was conveyed to him that his candidature was rejected due to receiving of his application after 10 days and being an employee of Subordinate Office (ISI). The appellant filed a departmental representation dated 23.4.2011 which was rejected without considering factual and legal aspects of the matter vide order dated 28.5.2011 against which the review petition preferred by the appellant under Section 7(3) of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC)
Ordinance, 1977 was also rejected vide impugned order dated 15.7.2011, hence, FAO No. 53/2011 has been filed by the appellant.
5. In FAO No. 54 of 2011, the appellant has mentioned that he was appointed as Account Assistant (BPS-11) on 1.6.1986 in the Federal Water Management Cell, Ministry of Food, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. In response to the advertisement published by the Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad for the examination of Section Officers, the appellant applied and appeared in the said examination however, his result has been withheld. Subsequently, the appellant was informed that his candidature has been rejected as according to Rules of Business, 1973, status of MINFA is not clear. However, the departmental representation filed by the appellant was rejected vide order dated 30.6.2011 and subsequently the review petition dated 14.7.2011 filed under Section 7(3) of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) Ordinance, 1977 was also rejected vide impugned order dated 28.7.2011, hence, FAO No. 54/2011 has been filed by the appellant, Zaheer Ahmad Khan.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that appellant Abdul Rehman is an employee of Directorate General, ISI, as such, being employee of an attached department of Ministry of Defence, he is eligible to appear in Section Officers Promotional Examination; that in the advertisement got published by the Federal Public Service Commission, it was mentioned that civilian employees of Pakistan Armed Forces Headquarters and their lower formations are eligible for the examination; that previously civilian employees of the Pakistan Armed Forces Headquarters and their lower formations had agitated the matter before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, against the rejection of their candidature for Section Officers Promotional Examination, 2004 and the Sindh High Court has held that the employees working in the Armed Forces Headquarters and its lower formations are eligible to appear in the Section Officers Promotional Examination.
7. Conversely, learned Deputy Attorney-General has argued that in terms of Schedule-Ill of the Rules of Business, 1973, neither ISI has been shown as an attached department nor Defence Division has ever approached for its inclusion in the schedule as an attached department, therefore, the appellant is not eligible for appearing in the Promotional Examination for appointment as Section Officers. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has also adverted the attention of this Court towards the advertisement got published by the Federal Public Service Commission on the basis of which the appellant had applied and states that according to the said advertisement employees of Ministries and Attached Departments are eligible to apply for Section Officers Promotional Examination, whereas, according to Clause 3(vi) of the said advertisement employees of other departments which have not been declared as Attached Departments in terms of Schedule-Ill of Rules of Business, 1973 are not eligible to appear in the said Promotional Examination. It is further asserted that the appellant Abdul Rehman (in FAO No. 53/2011) has also not provided correct information while applying for the said examination and marked his department a subordinate office, therefore, the appellants are not eligible to appear in the Section Officers Promotional Examination.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Deputy Attorney-General and perused the documents brought on record.
9. The appellants through the captioned appeals seek direction to the Federal Public Service Commission for issuance of their result and in case of their success allow them to appear in the interview for Section Officers Promotional Examination, 2010.
10. Federal Public Service Commission through impugned letters, has declared that the appellants are not eligible to appear in the Section Officer Promotional Examination being not employees of Ministries/Divisions or Attached Departments of the Federal Government, whereas, the appellants have come forward with the stance that they being employees of ISI (Ministry of Defence) and Federal Water Management Cell (Ministry of Food) respectively, are eligible to appear in the Section Officers Promotional Examination. However, the core issue which is required to be determined is that whether the departments where the appellants are serving, do fall within the bounds and limits set out by the Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad for the candidature of Section Officers Promotional Examination. Federal Public Service Commission has come forward with the stance that the departments where the appellants are serving do not enjoy the status of Ministries/Attached Departments of the Federal Government, whose employees are eligible to appear in the Section Officers Promotional Examination.
11. Meticulous perusal of advertisement got published by the Federal Public Service Commission regarding Section Officers Promotional Examination as well as the Rules for Section Officers Promotional Examination very much reflect that all civil servants having 8 years service in BPS 11 to 16 working in the Federal Secretariat and Attached Departments etc. Are eligible to appear in the Promotional Examination for Section Officers. However, the core issue which requires concentration is that whether the departments where the appellants are serving do fall within the ambit of Federal Secretariat/Attached Departments or not?
12. In the Rules of Business, 1973, term "Federal Secretariat" has been defined as:~ "Federal Secretariat" means the Divisions or the Ministries when referred to collectively."
Whereas term "Attached Department" has been defined as under:-- "Attached Department" means a Department which has direct relation with a Division and has been declared as such by the Federal Government."
13. Abdul Rehman, appellant in FAO No. 53/2011, has alleged that he is serving in the Directorate General Inter-Services Intelligence, whereas, Zaheer Khan, appellant in FAO No. 54/2011 has alleged that he is serving in the Federal Water Management Cell, Ministry of Food. In Schedule-I of Rules of Business, 1973, Ministries/Division of the Federal Government are mentioned, however, in the said Schedule both ISI and Federal Water Management Cell are not mentioned. As such, the departments where both the appellants are serving at the moment, do not fall within the definition of "Federal Secretariat". Now I advert towards the second eligibility, set out by the Federal Public Service Commission, for appearing in the Section Officers Promotional Examination, i.e. Employees serving in the "Attached Departments" of the Federal Government. As reproduced in the preceding paragraph, according to Rules of Business, 1973, an Attached Department is the department which has direct relation with a Division. In order to judge that whether the department of Abdul Rehman appellant i.e. Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and department of Zaheer Ahmad appellant i.e. Federal Water Management Cell, do have the status of Attached Department of Federal Government Ministries/Divisions or not, a deeper concentration is required in this regard. In the hierarchy of Federal Government Departments, there are different categories of Departments like, Ministries, Attached Departments, Subordinate Offices, Autonomous Bodies, and Semi- Autonomous Bodies etc. In the Rules of Business, 1973, under Schedule-I, list of Ministries and Division is mentioned, whereas Schedule-I I of Rules of Business, 1973 deal with the distribution of business among the Divisions and Schedule-I 11 contains the list of Attached Departments, declared as such by the Federal Government. I have very carefully gone through the list of Attached Departments, declared as such by the Federal Government, given under Schedule-Ill of Rules of Business, 1973. Unfortunately, Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Federal Water Management Cell, where both the appellants are serving, are not mentioned in the said list of Attached Departments. I am also forced to observe over here that there is no other criteria, formula or yardstick available in the law books on the subject, on the basis of which status of Directorate General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), where appellant Abdul Rehman is serving and Federal Water Management Cell, where appellant Zaheer Ahmad Khan is serving could be determined and in this regard one has to solely rely upon the Rules of Business, 1973. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the Departmental Permission Certificate of Abdul Rehman, said appellant had himself mentioned his department, as that of "Subordinate Office". After careful analysis I have reached to a firm conclusion that the departments where the appellants are serving do not have the status of Attached Departments, therefore, the employees serving in these departments are not eligible to appear in the Section Officers Promotional Examination as per the criteria laid down by the Federal Public Service Commission in the advertisement, wherein it is categorically mentioned that the employees of "other departments which have not been declared as attached departments in terms of Schedule-Ill of Rules of Business, 1973" are not eligible to appear in the Section Officer Promotional Examination, as such, the impugned orders dated 15.7.2011 passed by the Federal Public Service Commission do not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity, hence, call for no interference.
14. In view of what has been discussed above, I am constrained to hold that both the appeals are without any merits. Resultantly both the appeals stand dismissed.