' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, C.J.--- Through the instant appeal filed under section 7(3)(d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 the appellant has made the following prayer:-- - "It is respectfully prayed that impugned memorandum/letters dated 4-8-2011, 26-9-2011 and 19- 10-2011 respectively, may graciously be set aside as illegal and the appellant be declared as eligible to be selected against a post of Section Officer."
2. Precisely, the appellant has alleged that she is presently serving as Assistant Accounts Officer in Military Accounts Department, which is an attached department of Ministry of Defence. Respondent No,2 got published a publication in the National Press for selection of 50 Section Officers (BS-17) through Section Officers Promotional Examination 2010. Under Clause-2 of the aforesaid public notice, all civil servants who have put in minimum 8 years' service in BS-11 to BS-16 were declared eligible for the said examination. The appellant in pursuant to the said publication, being civil servant of an attached department, as well as having more than the requisite length of service applied and appeared in the examination and was consequently declared as successful candidate. Appellant was called for interview and she was finally declared as successful candidate vide press release dated 12-7-2011, however, surprisingly vide memorandum dated 4-8-2011 she was declared as ineligible being already serving in BPS-17. Appellant, being aggrieved, filed representation dated 16-8-2011 under section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, which was turned down vide order dated 26-9-2011 and subsequently, appellant's review petition also met the same fate, hence, the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellantargued that according to the publication got published by the Federal Public Service Commission/ respondent No,2, all the civil servants who had eight years of service in BS-11 to 16 were eligible to appear in the Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, as such, the appellant who is possessing requisite experience of working in BS-11 to 16, is ' eligible to be selected as Section Officer; that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, presently occupied by the appellant is originally a post of BS-16 which was upgraded to BS-17 vide notification dated 30- 9-2010, only for financial benefits without modification/alteration of duties and privileges; that respondent No,2 had earlier appointed one Ishtiaq Ahmad, Assistant Accounts Officer as Section Officer, although, at the time of selection, said Ishtiaq Ahmad was holding selection grade of BPS- 17; that holder of BS-17 post is not prohibited under any law of the land to be selected against a post of Section Officer, hence, the impugned memorandum/ letters are liable to be struck down.
4. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, learned Deputy Attorney-General appeared and argued that from the bare reading of Rule 4(a) of Rules for Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, inference can safely be drawn that all the civil servants having eight years of service, serving in BS-11 to 16 are/were eligible for Section Officers Promotional Examination and as the appellant was already serving in BS-17, hence, she was declared as ineligible for the Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010; that if the civil servants, like the appellant, are declared eligible to appear in the Section Officers Promotional Examination, the civil servants working in BS-11 to 16 would be deprived from availing the opportunity of promotion; that according to Rule 5(xviii) of Rules for Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010 all the candidates are admitted to the examination provisionally on their own risk, however, on detailed scrutiny of appellant's application, after examination, it transpired that she is already working in BPS-17, hence, she was declared ineligible for the Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy Attorney-General and perused the documents appended with the instant appeal.
6. Appellant, through the instant appeal seeks setting aside of the memorandum/letters dated 4- 8-2011, 26-9-2011 and 19-10-2011, whereby, she was declared ineligible for Section Officers Promotional Examinaton-2010. Appellant has taken the stance that according to clause (2) of Public Notice, got published in the national press by respondent No,2/Federal Public Service Commission, all the civil servants having eight years' service in BS-11 to 16 were eligible for the Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, hence, appellant being a successful candidate, is entitled to be selected against the post of Section Officer (BS-17). On the other, hand learned Deputy Attorney-General has taken the stance that civil servants, who had minimum eight years of service, serving in BS-11 to 16 were eligible for Section Officers Promotional Examination- 2010.
7. In the Public Notice got published by the Federal Public Service Commission/ respondent No,2, in the national press, it was mentioned "2. The following categories of Government Servants are eligible for the-Examination. All Civil Servants who have put in minimum 8 years of service in BS-11 to 16 in the President's Secretariat, Prime Minister's Secretariat, Senate Secretariat, National Assembly Secretariat, Federal Secretariat, Attached Departments, Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat, Federal Service Tribunal, Federal Public Service Commission, Intelligence Bureau and also the Civilian employees of Pakistan Armed Forces Headquarters and their lower formations."
The above mentioned eligibility is also available under Rule 4(a) of Rules for Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, beneath the head-note "ELIGIBILITY" appended with the appeal as "Annexure-J". In order to reach at a just and fair conclusion, I have meticulously perused the publication got published by the Federal Public Service Commission in the national press, as well as the Rules for Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, appended with the appeal.
8. Obviously, respondent No,2 had got published Public Notice with the caption Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, hence, for all intents and purposes, it was an examination for promotion of civil servants as Section Officers (BS-17). No doubt, promotion of a civil servant, takes place in a higher grade, hence, it can safely be held that all the civil servants, serving in Basic Pay Scales below to BS-17 were eligible for the Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010.
Moreover, in the Public Notice got published by Federal Public Service Commission/respondent No,2 as well as in the Rules for Section Offices Promotional Examination-2010, it was mentioned that all civil servants who have put in minimum 8 years of service in BS-11 to 16 are eligible for examination, therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be presumed that a civil servant, already serving in BS-17, having minimum eight years of service in BS-11 to 16 was also eligible for the Examination. I see eye to eye with the learned Deputy Attorney-General, that if the appellant who was/is already serving in BPS-17 as Assistant Accounts Officer, is declared eligible for appointment as Section Officer (BS-17), it will amount to depriving the civil servants, serving in BS-11 to 16, from promotion/appointment as Section Officer BS-17. Appellant has also come forward with the plea that she was declared ineligible after the clearance of Test and Interview by her, whereas, respondent No,2 was required to take decision about her eligibility prior to her appearance in the Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, In Rule 5(xviii) of Rules for Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, it has been categorically mentioned that "if a candidate is found ineligible his candidature will be cancelled irrespective of the fact whether he has appeared in the Examination or not or even qualified therein" Hence, the decision taken by respondent No,2/FPSC about the appellant's ineligibility after clearance of Test and Interview by her, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
9. It would not be out of place to mention here that it inspires even to a man of common prudence that a promotional examination for Section Officers (BS-17) would certainly be meant for civil servants working in Basic Scales below to BS-17 and not for the civil servants already working in BS-
17. Furthermore, Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a Judgment reported as Muhammad Younus Aarin v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh, Karachi and 10 others (2007 SCM R 134) has held that:--- "Government having domain to frame policy of promotion and appointment could also by law, provide qualification for appointment against a particular post and thus appointment against such post through promotion or otherwise --- Such appointment could not be claimed without fulfillment of criteria and requisite qualification."
10. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant appeal haslii no merits. Resultantly, the same is hereby dismissed.