' MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed by 42 senior clerks of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in which the Registrar of this Court has been impleaded as respondent No,1 while respondent No,2 has been described as the Administrative Appointing Authority under Rule 8 of the High Court (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules. The petitioners have assailed the orders passed by respondents Nos.1 to 4 (Annexures C/1 to C/3) whereby respondents Nos.5 to 69 were promoted to the posts in B.P.S. 11 and 16,
2. The precise grievance of the petitioners is that the appointments/promotion in N.P.S. 11 and 16 can only be made after the appointees/promotees had cleared the competitive test in terms of the High Court (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, but vide impugned orders respondents Nos. 5 to 69 have been promoted without any test being held.
3. The first question which arises for consideration is as to the maintainability of this petition.
Admittedly the petitioners are the employees of this Court and arc a class apart from the civil servants. Article 208 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides that the High Court may make rules for the appointment of officers and servants of the Court and for the terms and conditions of the employment. Consequently the appointment of the staff of the High Court is regulated under Article 208 by the Rules framed by the High Court and to these employees neither the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 nor the rules framed thereunder are applicable unless adopted by the Court itself. The Chief Justice of this Court has already framed the High Court Establisment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Article 227 (4) read with Paragraph 6 of Part II of the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962 and Article 268 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. The reasons as to why the officers and servants of the Superior Court are to be treated differently than the civil servants employed by the Government is not far to see. The object in making special dispensation for the officers and servants of the Court as provided by Article 208 of the Constitution is to secure the independence of the Superior Courts which is essential for the working of any democratic form of Government. The Constitution ensures that as far as possible the High Court should remain independent and free from interference in its affairs by the executive authorities.
4-A. With the above background, a reference may now be made to Article 199 of the Constitution which empowers this Court to inter alia declare 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 the Constitution execludes the Supreme Court, the High Court or a Tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan from its purview. That being so, no petition can be entertained under Article 199 of the Constitution against the High Court itself. This petition is, therefore, clearly not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the bar 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. It was further emphasised 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 he challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution.
6. This contention of the learned counsel is wholly devoid of any force. The orders impugned in the present petition have been passed by the then Chief Justice of this Court as is obvious from the impugned Notifications Annexures C/1 and C/2. It cannot be doubted that the Chief Justice exercises the powers and acts on behalf of the Court. Similarly the Registrar carries out the orders of the Chief Justice or the Judges of the High Court as the case may be. The fallacy of the arguments of the learned counsel becomes apparent by reference to Article 208 of the Constitution which vests powers to frame rules in respect of the employees of the High Court in the High Court itself. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by the employees of this Court against the orders passed by the Chief Justice or the Registrar on behalf of the Court.
7. Somewhat similar question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ibrar Hussain v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1976 SC 315) wherein while construing the effect of sub-Article (5) of Article 199 it was observed by Anwarul Haq, J. (as he then was) that:-- "However, the question is whether such proceedings 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 that 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."
' For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.