' MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.---This is an appeal under Rule 17(d) of The Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2013, read with the provisions of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977, whereby review petition filed by the appellant who appeared in the Competitive Examination (CSS) 2013 was dismissed by the respondent No,1 through order dated 6th of February 2014.
2. Necessary facts resulting in filing of present appeal are that appellant appeared in the competitive examination (CSS) held in 2013 being state subject of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, organized by Federal Public Service Commissioner. After the conclusion of written examination, appellant received letter No,F-2/23/2013-CE Roll No,11780/MUZ dated 19-9-2013 issued by respondent No,2 whereby the appellant was informed that his result will not be announced as he was not eligible for appearance in examination.
3. Being aggrieved, appellant filed a representation which was turned down and then he filed a - review petition on 2-12-2013 which-was not decided and the appellant filed Writ Petition No,591 of 2014 before this court which was disposed of on 2-12-2013 with the direction to respondent No,1 to decide the review petition and in compliance of said order review petition was dismissed on 6th of February 2014.
4, Assailing the vires of order impugned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant though earlier appeared having domicile of Punjab but later on he was issued certificate being State subject of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and in such capacity and status was eligible to participate in the competitive examination which fact was specially, mentioned in the admission form and the said form was accepted by the Federal Public Service Commission and role number was issued. Contended that later on with malice-in-fact respondents withheld the result though the same could not have been withheld, according to Rule 7(ii) of the rules for a Competitive Examination (CSS 2013). Argued that result of written examination, was required to be announced and after that any penal action, if permissible, could be taken against appellant. Submitted that representation and review petition was dismissed in utter disregard of the provision of Rule (ii) of the Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS 2013).
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General while defending the impugned order submitted that appellant availed maximum chances (3-chances) according to rules having domicile of Province of Punjab and after that was not eligible to appear in the examination.
Referring to the rule 8 (vi), it was submitted that since the appellant tried his luck three times and after getting the certificate of domicile from Azad Jammu and Kashmir again submitted admission form which is not permissible under the rules. Further submitted that maximum age under Rule 4(i) for competitive examination is 28 years and since the appellant was not entitled to avail fourth chance, therefore, he cannot validly plead that premium should he granted to him regarding upper limit of age being state, subject of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
6. According, to rule 8,(vi), a candidate can avail three chances of the examination which admittedly were availed by the appellant prior to appearing in the competitive examination in the year 2013. The said three chances were availed having domicile of province of Punjab. Later A on he got certificate of domicile from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and certificate of state subject and again applied but since it was fourth chance, therefore, he admittedly was not entitled to apply and appear in the competitive examination held in the year 2013. Though learned I counsel for the appellant submitted that condition of number of chances which can be availed by the candidate would not apply to the case of the appellant as he applied in the competitive examination being state subject of Azad Jammu and Kashmir but according to Rule 6(d), there is clear prohibition to the effect that domicile once claimed by the candidate and accepted by the commission for the purpose of admission to an examination shall be final and no change will be allowed at subsequent examination or selection.
7. In view of the matter, appellant was not entitled to appear fourth time in the competitive examination.
8. No doubt, according to Rule 7(ii), the Federal Public Service Commission reserves the right to declare the candidature of examinee cancelled, if after the announcement of result of written part of the examination, candidate is found ineligible in any respect under the rules in the examination but it does not mean that Federal Public Service Commission got no authority to declare any candidate ineligible prior to announcement of result. The argument as such canvassed with vehemence on the basis of Rule 7(ii) cannot advance the plea of appellant.
9. In view of above state of facts and law, appeal preferred by the appellant got no force and as such same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.