' QAZI FAEZ ISA, J.- An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court under Rule 17(d) of the 'Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2013'
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") of the Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad.
However, as the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 15th December 2015 this petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
2. Mr. Muhammad MunirPiracha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the Rules which also prescribed the age-limits for eligibility of candidates. He stated that since the petitioner had crossed the maximum prescribed age she sought relaxation of her upper age by two years under Rule 4(ii)(c) of the Rules, which is reproduced hereunder: "(ii) The upper age limit will be relaxed by two yeaRs,up to the age of 30 years in respect of:
(c) the candidates who are permanent residents of Azad Kashmir Territory, subject to submission of a certificate (Annex-C of Application Form) to be issued by Kashmir Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad."
' The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had obtained the above mentioned certificate dated 1s December 2014 from the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner (Rehabilitation), Mirpur Azad Kashmir, who had issued the same on behalf of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council. The certificate is in Urdu language and is titled (as translated) 'Certificate of the Resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir'. It is the case of the petitioner that she obtained the said certificate on the strength of her husband's status as a resident of Azad Kashmir Territory who had been issued a similar certificate dated 29th November 2014, therefore, compliance with the afore quoted Rule 4(ii)(c) had been made and the petitioner gained an additional two years, consequently, the Federal Public Service Commission ("the Commission") should have accepted her candidature urged Mr. Piracha. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Inam-ul-Haq v. Chairman F.P.S.C. (2005 SCM R 622).
3. The petitioner's application to the Commission seeking 'Age Relaxation' was dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 2nd July 2015 reproduced hereunder: "(v) The applicant Ms. Saleha Hassan applied four times for Competitive Examination viz. CE-2009 (absent), 2010, 2011 and 2013, as mentioned supra, and on all four occasions she submitted her domicile of Punjab issued by the DCO, Multan on 08.10.2001."
(vi) As the applicant Ms. Saleha Hassan claimed and submitted domicile of Punjab (Multan), therefore in terms of Rule 6(iv)(d) of Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS) stipulating that "Domicile once claimed by a candidate and accepted by the Commission for the purpose of admission to an examination shall he final. No change will be allowed at a subsequent examination or selection," her domicile of District Multan has been treated as final and no change can be allowed at a subsequent examination and selection."
' The review preferred by the petitioner against the above mentioned order of the Commission was dismissed on 2nd September 2015 where after the said appeal was filed before the High Court.
4. In the earlier round of litigation between the petitioner and the Commission which had reached up to this Court in Civil Appeal No,86 of 2015 the petitioner had failed to successfully substantiate her date of birth as 29th January 1985. In her Application Forms for Competitive Examination submitted to the Commission in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 she had herself shown her date of birth as 29th January 1983. She had also against the column of 'Domicile marked 'Punjab' and not 'Azad Kashmir'. She also ticked "NO" against the query whether, "Age Relaxation Claimed", mentioned in column No, 13(a) of the Form for years 2010 and 2011. However, since the order of this Court in Civil Appeal No, 86 of 2015, whereby the order of the Commission was restored, concluded by stating that if the petitioner, "has any legal recourse available to her under the law on the basis of her domicile certificate, this judgment shall not preclude her from availing such a remedy" the second round of litigation, as stated above, commenced. It is noteworthy that the earlier judgment did not touch the merits of the case with regard to the petitioner's purported domicile of Azad Kashmir nor struck down any provision of the Rules including Rule 3 of the Rules which prescribed 'Cut Off Date' with regard to eligibility of the candidates, as under: "The cut off date for determining the eligibility of the candidate in terms of age, qualifications, domicile, etc., is 31" December, 2012."
The petitioner was married on 16th April 2009 and on the strength of her husband's status/certificate she has also claimed to be a domicile of Azad Kashmir. The petitioner however acquired the said certificate on ls' December 2014, almost two years after the cut off date, where after she submitted an application seeking relaxation in her age on the basis of such certificate.
Such a certificate therefore would be of no avail to her in view of Rule 3 of the Rules.
5. The contentions advanced before us by the learned counsel were the same as before the High Court, which were attended to in the impugned judgment as under: "The appellant applied for CE, 2013 for which the closing date was fixed as 31.12.2012. The appellant was declared overage by 1-year-11 months and 2 days as the maximum age limit was 28 years but the appellant at that time was 29 years-11 months and 2 days and her candidature was accordingly "rejected. The appellant, filed application on 30.03.2015 for relaxation of age for two years claiming herself as a 'State Subject' of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on account of having been married with an inhabitant of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. I have gone through the 'State Subject Certificates' appended with this FAO. The certificate of the appellant was issued on 01.12.2014 whereas certificate of her husband Hassan Tariq Toor was issued on 29.11.2014. It means that the said certificate of husband of the appellant was issued on 29.11.2014 whereafter appellant's certificate was issued on 01.12.2014 just after three days. The cause of action at the most accrued to the appellant when her certificate was issued on 01.12.2014 and not earlier than that and when a period of about two years had already elapsed after cut-off-date of CE, 2013. The cut-off-date to appear in the CE, 2013 was 31.12.2012. Even if the appellant is granted age relaxation of two years being a state subject, this ends on 31.12.2014. Though the appellant had applied twice for CEs after her marriage but she did not apply for grant of age relaxation on any account including that of state subject. The appellant for the first time applied for age relaxation of two years on 30.05.2015 on account of state subject when this period had already elapsed. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for grant of age relaxation to the appellant. Even otherwise, according to the FPSC, the CE, 2013 was held and in pursuance thereof, the appointments had already been made, as such, it has become past and close[d] transaction.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized more on the point that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled InamulHaq v. Chairman, F.P.S.C., Islamabad (2005 SCM R 622), the appellant is entitled to the age relaxation prayed for by her. This question was earlier raised before the FPSC which rightly addressed this argument by stating that the facts of this case are altogether different from those of the present case. The appellant in the afore-referred case was InamulHaq who while appearing for CE, 2002 filed application for age relaxation well before the cutoff-date on the basis of subject of State of Jammu and Kashmir whereas the appellant has moved application for age relaxation after more than two years of cut- off-date of CE-2013, therefore, she is not entitled to age relaxation sought for by her. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant does not hold water which is accordingly discarded.
9. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is without any merit. The same is dismissed."
' From the aforesaid extract of the impugned judgment it is clear that the High Court, after a careful examination of the matter, upheld the decision of the Commission and the reasoning for doing so is unexceptionable.
6. There are a couple of questions which had agitated us. Firstly, whether the certificate issued by the said District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner was the one envisaged under Rule 4(ii)(c) of the Rules, which stipulated that it should be as per "Annex-C of Application Form", and "issued by the Kashmir Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad". Secondly, whether Rule 4(ii)(c) of the said Rules also extends to a spouse. However, we need not determine these questions as they were neither considered by the Commission nor by the High Court.
7. The aforesaid are the reasons for dismissing this petition vide our short order dated 7th March, 2016, reproduced hereunder: "for detailed reasons to follow, this petition is dismissed and leave refused."