MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.--- Through this petition, petitioner Miss. Gulnaz Baloch, prays as under:- "In view of above circumstances, it is therefore, humbly prayed that the instant constitutional petition may kindly be accepted and the respondents may kindly be directed:
(i) To initiate a de novo exercise of conducting interviews for determining as well as upholding the merit afresh and the case of the petitioner be reconsidered in the light of reserved quota for women and also on merit and consequently the petitioner may kindly be declared as successful and the direction may also be issued to appoint the petitioner against the seat which is still lying vacant as Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate.
(ii) To satisfy this Hon'ble Court that on what criteria the marks of interview had been awarded to the candidates especially to the petitioner qua the private respondents, the proceedings/reports of the interview may kindly be ordered to be produced in the court, and in consequence thereof the appointment of private respondents may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice.
(iii) It is further prayed that an appropriate order for suspension of the impugned notification of appointments of the private respondents (newly appointed/qualified Civil Judges) may kindly be passed."
2. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that in response of an advertisement appeared in daily newspaper of the month of December, 2011, she applied for the post of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate (BPS-18). Her name was shortlisted and included in the list of eligible candidates. After conducting written test/examination, the result was announced on 13th November, 2012. The petitioner secured 281 marks, out of 500, with percentage of 56.20, whereas the cut-of percentage for the candidates eligible for interview was set at 49.50. As per the petitioner, there were three candidates i.e. Mr. Junaid Nawaz Khan (308-marks), Miss. Gulnaz Baloch, the petitioner, (281- marks) and Mr. Yahya Asif (249-marks) from Sibi zone. She further averred that she was interviewed by the panel of four Judges of the High Court of Balochistan, headed by the then Chief Justice of Balochistan on 23rd November, 2012. The result of interview was announced on 13th December, 2012 and uploaded on the website of the High Court of Balochistan. It is case of the petitioner that out of 200 marks, only 54 marks were awarded to her and on account of large variation shown in the marks, it can be presumed that the panel could not assign the interview marks impartially, without prejudice and fairly, thus, the petitioner was disqualified from being appointed as Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents, appended with the petition. It is worth mentioning that a Court, prior to taking cognizance of a matter, is supposed to determine the question of its jurisdiction and any order passed without jurisdiction cannot be allowed to hold the field for a moment. Keeping in mind the above legal position, we posed repeated questions to the learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy us about the maintainability of the instant petition, but he could not come with any solid argument, except taking the stance that the bar under sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 ("the Constitution") is confined to the challenge of orders passed by the High Court on the judicial side and the administrative orders passed by the Court in respect of its employees are not immune from challenge. He further contended that the order in this case has been passed by the Registrar of this Court, who is not a High Court and, therefore, his orders can be challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution. In order to answer the question, it would be advantageous to reproduce herein below Articles 192 and 199(5) of the Constitution, which furnish a complete answer to the proposition in question:--- "192. Constitution of High Court.--- (1) A High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and so many other Judges as may be determined by law or, until so determined as may be fixed by the President.
"199(5). In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires, "person" includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government, and any Court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan."
A bare perusal of Article 192 of the Constitution clearly postulates that the existence of a High Court is dependent upon the Chief Justice and the prescribed number of Judges. There can be no High Court without a Chief Justice and Judges; both are essential components to constitute a High Court.
5. Similarly, Article 199 of the Constitution empowers this Court to; inter alia, consider the legality/constitutionality of the orders passed by a person, performing the functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province. While defining 'person', sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution excludes the Supreme Court, High Court or Tribunal, established under a law, relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan from its purview. All actions, acts and orders made by the High Court or the Supreme Court or any Judge thereof in exercise of powers and functions relating to the performance of his official duties, cannot be subjected to the writ. Thus, no petition can be entertained under Article 199 of the Constitution against the High Court. In this respect, reference can be made to the case of "Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan" (PLD 1976 Supreme Court 315), wherein it has been held in unequivocal terms that:--- "However, the question is whether such proceeding are barred by virtue of the definition of 'person' as given in Paragraph (5) of Article 199, which definition excludes the Supreme Court as well as the High Court from its purview. It seems to me that the intention of the Constitution-makers is to exclude, from the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, all actions, acts and orders made by the High Court or the Supreme Court, or by any Judge thereof in the exercise of the functions and powers of his office."
6. Likewise, in case of "Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs" (PLD 1998 SC 161), it was held:--- "The actions of the Judge which relate to the performance of his duty and functions as a Judge of the Court or as a member of the Court, cannot be brought under challenge under Article 199 of the Constitution before the High Court. Only such actions of a Judge of superior Court are amenable to the jurisdiction of High Court' under Article 199 of the Constitution, which he performs in his personal capacity, having no nexus with his official functions as a Judge of the Court."
7. The main point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the appointments in question were made by the then Chief Justice and the Selection Committee in administrative capacity, as such, the administrative status of the High Court can always be subjected to the judicial review, is also devoid of any force, for the reason, that the High Court cannot be deemed to be. Conferred with two distinct characters i.e. One judicial, which is immune from writ, and the other administrative, which is amenable to the writ. Where a Judge of the High Court, acts as a Court, for and on behalf of the Court, it is the Court by itself and has complete and absolute immunity, which is not dependent on the kind of jurisdiction, it exercises. In the case of ''Asif Saeed v. Registrar, Lahore High Court" (PLD 1999 Lahore 350), his lordship Mian Saqib Nisar, who has spoken for the Court, observed as under:--- "To our mind the judicial orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court on jurisprudential plane, were already protected from the exercise of writ. It is only the administrative/executive or consultative functions/orders and acts which in fact have been saved under this sub-Article. By plain reading of sub-Article (5) and by applying settled rules of interpretation, High Court cannot be deemed to be conferred two distinct characters i.e. One judicial which is immune from writ, and the other administrative which is amenable to the writ."
8. It may be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the appointment orders, in this case, have been issued by the Registrar of this Court, who is, admittedly, not a High Court and, therefore, his orders can be challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution, is also without any substance. In this regard, it would be advantageous to reproduce the notification dated 19th December, 2012, impugned herein, issued by the Registrar of this Court, which reads as under:--- "On the recommendation of Balochistan Judicial Selection Board, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High .Court of Balochistan has been pleased to appoint the following as Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates (BPS-18), in the following order of merit, with immediate effect:--- S.No. Name and Father's Name
1. Mr. Asif Jameel s/o Jameel Ahmed
2. Mr. Muhammad Ali Kanrani son of Muhammad Itbar
3. Mrs. Saima Parveen wife of Hizbullah
4. Mr. Muhammad Israq Mandokhail son of Haji Qalandar Khan Mandokhail
5. Mr. Muhammad Anwar s/o Abdul Qadir
6. Mr. Rozi Khan son of Khudai Dost
7. Mr. Khan Muhammad son of Taj Wali
8. Mr. Ali Baig son of Abdullah
9. Mrs. Sana Manzoor Kohso wife of Ashfaq Ali Gilal
10. Mr. Abdul Haleem Qureshi son of Haji Abdul Hakeem Qureshi
11. Mr. Shah Nawaz son of Shah Bakhsh
12. Mr. Junaid Nawaz Khan son of Muhammad Nawaz Khan
13. Miss Raqiba Khan Akhondzada daughter of Akhondzada Muhammad Ali
14. Mr. Sabir Saleem son of Muhammad Saleem
15. Mr. Muhammad Yousaf son of Ghulam Rasool
16. Mr. Jamsaka son of Jan Muhammad
17. Mr. Noor Bakhsh son of Muhammad Noor
18. Mr. Muhammad lqbal son of Haji Abdul Sattar
19. Mr. Khadim Hussain son of Bangui Khan
20. Mr. Muhammad Juma son of Muhammad Saeed
21. Miss Kaneez Fatima daughter of Ghulam Hussain Butt
22. Mr. Yahya Asif son of Asif Javed
23. Mr. Abdul Baseer son of Haji Abdul Wahid
24. Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan son of Muhammad Gul
25. Mr. Hizbullah son of Haji Abdul Rasheed
26. Mr. Kaleemullah son of Haji Habibullah
27. Miss Zill-e-Huma daughter of Muhammad Salah
28. Mr. Abdul Rehman son of Ghulam Jan They shall remain on probation as per Rule-8 of the Balochistan Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates Service Rules, 2002.
Note: They are required to appear before the recognized medical board, before submitting of arrival report.
BY ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR)
REGISTRAR"
9. It is opened to naked eye that the afore-quoted notification has been issued by the Registrar of this Court on behalf of the Chief Justice and it is a matter of common knowledge that, as a routine practice, the Registrar carries out the orders of the Chief Justice or the Judges of the High Court.
Admittedly, the impugned notification was issued by the Registrar of this Court, in compliance of the order passed by the then Chief Justice of this Court. The notification issued by the Registrar was, therefore, the order of the then Chief Justice of this Court, thus, we are of the considered view that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked against the orders passed by the Chief Justice or the Registrar on behalf of the Court.
10. Similarly, we are also not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of hardship and due to non-availability of alternate remedy, the provisions of sub-Article (5) should be construed in a way, permitting the invocation of writ. While dealing with the said proposition, a division bench of the Lahore High in Asif Saeed's case, supra, while relying on the reported cases of "Mahmood Khan Achakzai v. Federation of Pakistan" (PLD 1997 SC 426) and "Shahid Nabi Malik v. Chief Election Commissioner" (PLD 1997 SC 32), observed as under:--- "The final submission from the petitioners' side that as no other/further remedy available to them, therefore, the provisions of sub-Article (5) should be construed in a way, permitting the invocation of writ, cannot be allowed because, if this sub-Article is interpreted as suggested by the learned counsel it would tantamount to reading into the constitutional provisions something which is not permissible under the law."
11. Though we were not inclined to dilate upon merits of the case due to non-maintainability of the instant petition, yet on the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be noted that it is evident from the record that the petitioner, respondent No.3 Yahya Asif and one Junaid Nawaz Khan applied for the post of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate from the concerned Zone. She was interviewed by the Selection Committee, consisting upon four Judges of this Court and was given certain marks, but she could not secure enough marks to be selected. The authority of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged and questioned because of the fact that the Selection Committee is the best judge at the given time to form an opinion, take decision after judging the abilities and capabilities of the candidates and the Court shall not interfere and thrust their opinion subsequently changing the verdict of the Selection Committee except when it has been made other than the capability of the petitioner or smacks of mala fide.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that by virtue of definition of 'person' as given in sub-Article (5) of Article 199, the. Constitution makers have intentionally excluded the Supreme Court as well as the High Court from its purview. All the actions, acts and orders made by the High Court or the Supreme Court, or by any Judge thereof, in the exercise of the functions and powers of his office, are excluded from the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
In view of the above, the petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed in limine.