AYESHA A. MALIK, J.-- This common judgment decides upon the issues raised in the instant Intra-Court Appeal ("ICA") along with connected ICA Nos. 24172/2020, 24791/2020, 24788/2020, 50516/2 019 and 50158/2019. The instant ICA alongwith connected ICA Nos. 50156/2019, 50158/2019 challenge judgment dated 11.6.2019 passed h) the learned Single Judge in WP Nos. 257665/2018, 7609/2019, 257665/2018 ("Impugned Judgment ") whereas ICA Nos. 24172/2020, 24791/2020, 24788/2020 challenge Order dated 9.3.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP. Nos. 38764/2019. 40506/2019 and 11245/2019 ("Impugned Order "). Essentially the - Impugned Order dated 9.32020 has decided the writ petitions in terms of the impugned dated 1 1.6.2019.
2. ICA No. 39525/2019 has been filed by Dr. Anees-ur-Rehman who has challenged the impugned judgment passed in WP No. 257665/2018 wherein notification dated 25.5.2018 as well as-advertisements to the extent of fixation of 20% quota under the category of special zone has been declared as illegal and without lawful authority . the appellant seeks restoration of his order dated 22.1.2010 whereby he was appointed as Associate Professor (13S-19) ENT.. ICA No. 24172/2020 has been filed by the Appellants Waseem Ullah Khan, Alith Riaz, Aqsa Salem Abdul Sattar and Rahail Noor who have challenged the Impugned Order based on the Impugned Judgment with reference to the post of Senior Special Education Teacher (DEAF) BS-17. ICA No. 24791/2020 has been filed by the Appellants Abdul Ghaf far, Hasnain Abbass, Touseef-ur-Rehman, Asma Bibi, Samia Riaz and Muhammad Bilal we have challenged the, Impugned Order based on the Impugned Judgment with reference to the post of Junior Special Education Teacher (Mentally Retarded) BS-16. ICA No. 24788/2020 has been tiled by the Appellants Iima Mehmood and Khalid Mehmood who have challenged the impugned order based on the Impugned Judgment with reference to the post of Junior Special Education Teacher (Physically Handicapped)
3. The Appellant Government of Punjab in ICA No.50156/2019 and 50158/2019 is aggrieved by the Impugned judgment and Impugned Order essentially on the ground that it falls within their discretion to establish zonal quotas; that in this case in order to provide equal opportunity to the special area affirmati ve action was taken to promote and uplift the named areas and ensure greater participation of the inhabitants of that area Mr. Muhammad Shan Gull. Additional Advocate General, Punjab relied upon the summary for the Chief Minister, Punjab on this issue in which he was informed that it is necessary to revive zonal quota in service to assist backward areas and classes to develop and shift them towards the mainstream. As per the discussion in the Cabinet meeting, people Southern Punjab are underrepresented in public service, hence there is a need to create zonal quota. The Additional Advocate General, Punjab stated that on the basis of the available data the Cabinet considered the issue of creating the special zonal quota and accordingly relied upon Rule 20 of the Rules. He further stated that by' way of this Rule, the Government of Punjab can create quotas for areas they deem necessary in order to ensure their-adequate representation in the service Pakistan. Subsequent therein notification dated 25.5.2018 was issued which has been impugned in W.P. No. 257665/2018. He has also provided the division/district-wise data from 2016 to -August 2020 in support of his claim. The other Appellants supported the arguments made by the Additional Advocate General. Punjab and stated that special quota was necessary to ensure equal opportunity for the people of special zones: Further that they were 'appointed, hence a vested right was created in their favour.
4. On behalf of the Respondents, it is argued that they were applicants who participated in the process while applying to various different posts advertised for the purposes of recruitment and it is their contention that the zonal quota is unconstitutional, against the mandate of Article 27 of the Constitution: that it is discriminator that it is not based on any data or statistics: that the Punjab Public Service Commission puts out all relevant data and information on its website with respect to the recruitment process and the representation from different areas of Punjab and the representation from the special zones is at par with the other areas , hence the data given is against the record. They have also relied upon data which has been place on record. Reliance was placed on Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal and others. V . The Honourable Lahore High Court Lahore and others (1997 SCMR 1043 ).
5. Notice in terms of Order XXVII-A of Civil Procedure Code. 1908 ("CPC -) was issued to the learned Advocate General Punjab in WP No. 257665/2018 Report and parawise comments were filed and the cases were heard. The learned Single Judge set aside the special. zonal quota through the impugned judgment: and impugned order on the grounds that it was discriminatory and that it violates Article 27 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution "). Further as per the Impugned Judgment the premise of the special zonal quota was Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 ("Rules ") which provides that vacancies in various posts shall be filled in from the persons domiciled in the Province of Punjab in accordance with merit; provided that for a period not exceeding 20 years from the commencing day of Constitution, such posts may be reserved for persons domiciled in such areas as may be specified. The Impugned Judgment held that in terms of Section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 ("Act"), the powers of rule-making do not give the power to the Governor to fix a zonal quota, hence the Governor of Punja b cannot exercise power that is not delegated to it under the Act. Consequently all the petitions were allowed, the special zonal quota was declared illegal and the Government of Punjab was directed to amend the relevant laws, if they wanted to create any zonal quota.
6. It is noted that CM No. 1/2020 in ICA No. 39525/2019 and CM No 1/2020 in ICA No 50158/2019 have been filed by the Applicants under Order I, Rule 10, CPC for their impleadment as Appellan ts. Learned counsel argued that the stated Applicants are success-1 1 candidates in the combined competitive examination 2019, however they have not been appointed as the Punjab Public Service Commission has refused to announce the result on account of the status quo order of this Court dated 13.1.2020 in ICA No 50158/2019.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through record. Essentially by way of notification dated 25.5.2018 issued by the Secretary (Regulations),.. Government of Punjab, Services and General Administration Department, Lahore declared Bahawalpur Division, Dera Ghazi Khan Division, Multan Division, District Bhakkar and District Mianwali of Sargodha Division in the Punjab as a 'special zone' and reserved 20% seats for bona fide residents of the special zone in all recruitments. Pursuant thereof various different advertisements were issued in which the special zone quota was provided for The Impugned Judgment has considered the constitutionality of the zonal quota and allowed the writ petitions essentially on the ground that Article 27 of the Constitution specifically provides that no citizen shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth; that for the purpose not exceeding 40 years from the commencing day of the Constitution posts may be reserved for persons belonging to any class or area to secure their adequate representation in the service of Pakistan and further that any representation of any class or area in the service of Pakistan may be redressed as determined by an Act of Majlis- e-Shoora (Parliament). Therefore if at all any zonal quota is to be created within the Province, it may be done through by amending the law. In this case, zonal quota has been introduced on the strength of the Rules being Rule 20 which reads as follows: "Vacancies in various posts shall be filled in accordance with merit on all Punjab basis from amongst the persons domiciled in the Punjab; but, the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette reserve posts for persons belonging to any class or area to secure their adequate representation in the service of Pakistan."
8. We note that not only is the creation of zonal quota totally against the mandate of the Constitution but even for the purposes of Rule 20, the appellant Government of Punjab cannot create zonal quotas. In terms of Section 23 of the Act, the authority to make rules by the Governor is limited to the provisions of Section 23 which provides that the rules can be made which are necessa ry or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act in respect of the terms and conditions of service as provided under the Act. Hence in terms of the Act itself and the authority to make rules, there is no power to introduce zonal quota. Even otherwise the impugned notification dated 25.5.2018 is against the spirit of Rule 20 of the Rules as the stated Rule requires that various posts be filled from persons domiciled in the Province of Punjab in accordance with the merit and its applicat ion is limited for a period of 20 years from the Commencement day of the constitution. This period has expired and there has been no extension in the period from the commencing day of the Constitution, hence the rule itself does not permit any zonal quota. So the appellants' reliance on Rule 20 of the Rules in itself is misguided as the creation of a special zone against the provisions of Rule 20. In this regard, the Impugned Judgment has clearly stated that delegated power is controlled and regulated by the parent statute and that the rules cannot provide for something that is not given in the parent statute, therefore we find that no illegality is made out in the Impugned Judgment or the Impugned Order . The fact that zonal quota is unconstitutional: all appointments offered in consequence thereof are illegal and cannot be sustained. We note that the matter in issue has been examined by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal's Case where five I Ion. Judges of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan clearly state that zonal quotas are unconstitutional.
9. In view of the aforesaid, all the ICAs are dismissed and the Impugned Judgment and Impugned Orders passed by the learned Single Judge are maintained.