RAHEEL KAMRAN, J. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ('Constitution'), petitioners have impugned the provision of the Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, 2009 ('Rules') qua upper age limit for initial recruitment to the post of Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer/Hill Torrent Officer/Reader to Members Board of Revenue (BS-16).
2. The petitioners, having the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, in response to an advertisement dated 04.10.2023 published in a newspaper, applied for the post of Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer/Hill Torrent Officer/Reader to Members. Board of Revenue (BS-16), however, their applications were rejected for being over-aged, hence, this constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that provision of the Rules with regard to fixation of upper age limit i.e. 28 years is discriminatory, hence, is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution.
He maintains that the upper age limit for the initial recruitment to the post of Tehsildar (BS-16) in the provinces of KPK and Balochistan is 30 years and 43 years respectively whereas in the province of Sindh, it is 30 years. He further contends that the Punjab Public Service Commission ('PPSC') also conducts Punjab Management Services (PMS) examination and before the year 2018'upper age limit for the said examination was 28 years, which has also been changed to 30 years to keep pace with the Federation and other provinces.
4. Conversely, learned Law Officer contends that under Article 240(b) of the Constitution, province of the Punjab is authorized to make law/rules in respect of the service matters including its terms and conditions. He maintains that after introduction of 18th amendment in the Constitution, each province has autonomy to formulate its own policies which it considers to be in its best interest and is not bound by the practices and policies of other provinces or the federation. He further contends that Government of the Punjab vide letter dated 08.08.2016 has already granted age relaxation in upper age limit up to 05 years for male candidates and up to 08 years for female candidates, therefore, maximum age for male candidates eligible to apply against the post of Tehsildar was 33 years, however, the petitioners were found more than the said age, hence, their applications were rightly rejected being over-aged.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioners allege discrimination qua upper age limit for appointment through initial recruitment to the post of Tehsildar in the province of Punjab. Article 240 of the Constitution empowers the Federal Government and Provincial Governments to make laws regarding services of each Government. The said Article is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: - "240. Appointment to service of Pakistan and conditions of service.---Subject to the Constitution, the appointments to and the conditions of service of persons in the service of Pakistan shall be determined---
(a) in the case of the services of the Federation, posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation and All-Pakistan Services, by or under Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament); and
(b) in the case of the services of a Province and posts in connection with the affairs of a Province, by or under Act of the Provincial Assembly."
From the wording used in the above Article, it is manifest that for the appointments and conditions to services relating to a province, the same shall be determined by or under the Act of the concerned Provincial Assembly. In consequence of conferment of such power, each province has separate legislation, as the Punjab Government has enacted the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 to regulate its employees, the Sindh Government has the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, the KPK Government has the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Balochistan Government has the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. Even otherwise, by virtue of the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment introduced through the Act No.10 of 2010, the Concurrent Legislative List was removed and provinces were granted autonomy meaning thereby Provincial Governments were wholly responsible to the provincial legislations and were free from outside control and interference in large number of matters. The extent of executive authority of province is outlined by Article 137 of the Constitution which makes it co-extensive with its legislative power, subject to the Constitution.
7. It is by now well settled that each province is empowered and entitled to make its own decision regarding the subjects that fall within its respective domain in accordance with its own circumstances, ground realities, policies and priorities. Each province has freedom to formulate such policies as are permissible within the framework of the Constitution while maintaining provincial autonomy provided under the law and the Constitution. A decision by one Province regarding any matter cannot be cited as ground for discrimination if another province does not take the same decision and argument of discrimination raised by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that other provinces have different upper age limit to the same post or have different terms and conditions of service, is not available[1]. Even otherwise, upper age limit of the requisite post prescribed through the impugned Rules is a policy decision of the provincial government. Although under the scope of judicial review, the Court may review the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body and may invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority, however, the power of judicial review of governmental policy is now well-settled, in which neither the Court can act or represent as an appellate authority with the aim of scrutinizing the rightness or aptness of a policy nor may it act as an advisor to the executives on matters of policy which they are entitled to formulate. The judicial review can be sought when decision maker fails to observe statutory procedures, misdirects itself in law, exercises a power wrongly or the policy decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In the absence of any violation of constitutional guarantee or patent illegality, such policy decision cannot be invalidated by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.[2]
8. The appropriate approach to Article 25 of the Constitution is well settled and reference needs only be made to one of the leading cases, I.A Sharwani and others Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division Islamabad and others[3]wherein following principles of law governing operation of Article 25 have been set out:
(i) that equal protection of law does not envisage that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances, but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike;
(ii) that reasonable classification is permissible but it must be founded on reasonable distinction or reasonable basis;
(iii) that different laves can validly he enacted for different sexes, persons in different age groups, persons having different financial standings, and persons accused of heinous crimes,
(iv) that no standard of universal application to test reasonableness of a classification can be laid down as what may be reasonable classification in a particular set of circumstances, may be unreasonable in other set of circumstances,
(v) that a law applying to one person or one class of persons may be constitutionally valid if there is sufficient basis or reason for it, but a classification which is arbitrary and is not founded on any rational basis is no classification as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Article 25;
(vi) that equal protection of law means that all persons equally placed be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed:
(vii) that in order to make a classification reasonable, it should be based--
(a) on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out;
(a) that the differential must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification."
In somewhat similar case of Jahangir Sarwar and others v. Lahore High Court and another (2011 SCMR 363), the Supreme Court of Pakistan has rejected the challenge qua discrimination with the following observations:- "It is well settled by now that "equality clause does not prohibit different laws for those differently circumstanced provided a rational standard is laid down to guide the discretion of the relevant Authority to choose the appropriate law. A State may classify persons and objects for the purpose of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons and objects for the purpose of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons or objects within a class. In fact almost all allegation involves some kind of classification whereby some people acquire rights or suffer disabilities which other do not. Expression "equal protection of laws" does not place embargo on power of State "to classify either in adoption of police laws, or tax laws or eminent domain laws" rather gives to State exercise of wide scope of discretion, of course, nullifying. "what is without any reasonable basis". The State has the power of what is known as "classification" on the basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject dealt with. Classification may be due to geographical situation or it may be based on territorial, economic, communal and other similar considerations. The Constitution itself contemplates passing of different laws for different province by their respective legislatures. The doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to person multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems. It, therefore, should have the power to make reasonable classification of persons and things, to whom different treatment may be accorded, provided there is legitimate basis for such difference, the State can make laws to attain special objects, and the administrative authorities may make classification in pursuance of such laws. But the classification should not be arbitrary and capricious and must rest on reasonableness and have a fair nexus and a just relation with the need for which classification is made."
Keeping in view the above, it is abundantly clear that the Punjab Government is empowered to make laws/policies in view of the ground realities and particular circumstances and there is no justification that laws/decisions of other provinces can be made applicable to it.
9. Insofar as this case is concerned, admittedly petitioners were also granted age relaxation of 05 years as permissible under the law but still they could not qualify for being over-aged. No illegality or irregularity in the recruitment process has been pointed out or no mala fide has been attributed to the concerned authority.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
1. S.M.C. No. 15 of 2010 (2013 SCMR 304) and Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Quetta and others v. Dr. Muhammad Tariq Jafar and others (2020 SCMR 1689)
2. Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 201), Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif (2023 SCMR 129) and Senior General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others v.
Muhammad Pervaiz (2024 SCMR 58))
3. (199) SCMR 1041), Para 26