' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---In this case, leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 15th May, 2012, which is reproduced herein below:-- "The petitioner in person, inter alia contends that Federal Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") failed to calculate the result of contesting candidates as per the formula, which was adopted in its 128th meeting. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced herein below:- "8. The Commission considered the modalities for implementation of the decision of the Commission regarding weightage of 30% and 70% to written test and interview respectively as contained in the concept paper. It was decided to .Change weightage to 33.33% for written test and 66.67% for interview in order to simplify calculation and to initiate implementation forthwith, effective form Interview Committee for the post of Patrol Officer (BS-14)".
He has attempted to demonstrate that if the above formula is accepted and followed, he is likely to secure more marks, as compared to the given marks, but the Commission ignored the same; as a result whereof injustice and prejudice has been caused to him because he has been declared unsuccessful in an exercise which according to him was done arbitrarily whereas in terms of the above formula, he is a successful candidate. Leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider the above contentions."
2. It is. Represented on behalf cf Federal Public Service Commission that after taking the above decision, the same was reviewed before the calculation of inter se merit and following decision was taken:- "214. In my view, the Commission decided to give 2/3rd weight to interview and I/3rd to written test.
Accordingly, in the over all marks distribution scheme for General Recruitment Tests, 200 marks have been allocated to interview and 100 to written test, which practically caries the weightage of 2/3rd and I/3rd for interview and written test respectively. Therefore, to further multiply/divide the interview marks by 2/3rd and written marks by 1/3rd not only complicates the merit calculation but also appears to be wrong interpretation of the Commission's decision. In actual practice simply by adding the marks of interview and written test takes the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd as was decided by the Commission. Therefore, the practice of adding the marks of interview (which are awarded from 200 marks) and written test (which are awarded from 100 marks) may be continued and according to the merit list already prepared and approved by the Commission vide paras 147 to 183 may be mentioned and the nomination of restored candidate. Mr. Muhammad Khalid for the post of Assistant Professor English (BS-19) against merit quota and failure against the post of NAFATA in the subject of Commerce as proposed at para 201-2006/N may be approved by the Commission."
3. As the above decision was taken much after submission of the application forms for appointment of the Joint Census Commissioner, the appellant, who appeared in person, stated that the calculation of the marks has to be made in accordance with the formula, which was in vogue at the time, when he had applied for his appointment, as Joint Census Commissioner. His contention has been controverted by the respondents.
4. It is to be noted that the appellant has relied upon the judgments of this Court reported as Lt. Muquddus Haider v. Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman, Islamabad (2008 SCM R 773) and Senior Member BOR and others v. Sardar Bakhsh Bhutta and another (2012 SCM R 864), wherein in respect of a notification, it was observed that the same shall be applicable prospectively, whereas in respect of examination, a full bench comprising of 5 Hon'ble Judges in the case reported as Mushtaq. Ahmed Mohal and others v. The Hon'ble Lahore High court, Lahore and others (1997 SCM R 1043), wherein earlier judgment of this Court reported as Dr. Habibur Rahman v. The West Pakistan Public Service Commission, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1973 SC 144) has been followed. The relevant paras therefrom are reproduced herein below:-- "22. On the other hand, the judgment of this Court in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P., Health and Social Welfare Department (supra) is directly applicable to the instant case, in which also somewhat similar contention was advanced.
' In the above report reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Habibur Rahman v. Pakistan Public Service Commission, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1973 SC 144) and the relevant extract from the judgment of the above case was quoted with approval as under:-- "In the case of Dr. Habibur Rahman v. The West Pakistan Public Service Commission, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1973 SC 144) recruitment to the post of Professors of Surgery for Medical Colleges in West Pakistan was taking place through an interview by the Public Service Commission. After the advertisement and before the interview, the qualifications were changed. A vested right was claimed in the qualification advertised and the conditions current at the time of interview were sought to be avoided. The matter was dealt with by this Court in the following words at page 156 of the report:-- ' `While considering the question whether relevant rules/ instructions have been infringed in any manner in the matter of assessing the respective merit of the competing candidates, it has to be borne in mind that the reference must be to instructions current at the time the interviews are held by the Public Service Commission. An attempt was made during the course of arguments at the Bar to assert that the instructions applicable should be those which were in force at the time the posts were advertised. This position cannot be accepted as it is difficult to hold that candidates applying for recruitment by interview have any vested right in the method of assessing their merit. Accordingly, we intend to examine this aspect of the case with reference to the instructions which were in force at the time the two interviews were held.'
' The law has since been well-established that the rules applicable and the conditions required to be satisfied on the date of appointment are to be taken into consideration and not what were the requirements at an earlier date."
23. It is evident from the above-quoted extract that by now it is a well-established principle of law that he rules applicable and the conditions required to be specified are those which are in force on the date of appointment and not which were obtaining earlier i,e, at the time of inviting applications etc."
5. Thus in view of the law laid down in the above judgment, we are constrained to hold that the appellant has no vested right to claim that, while making calculation, formula noted in the leave granting order A reproduced hereinabove should be followed instead of the new formula, which was made applicable. Thus for the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the instant appeal has no force, therefore, the same islA dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.