' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This judgment will dispose of these two petitions as the learned counsel for the petitioners addressed the same arguments in both these petitions.
2. The petitioner Maqbool Ahmad (C.P.No, 135/1991) seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 18-3-1991 and the petitioner Rahim Shah is aggrieved against the order dated 19-5-1991 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case are that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission, the petitioners applied for the post of Accountant (B.16). They were selected as probationer Accountants and allocated to Pakistan Military Accounts Department.
4. The petitioner Maqbool Ahmad failed to pass the Accounts Promotion Examination. He was given an option for accepting the post of Senior Auditor ortherwise he would be discharged from service.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected by the Federal Public Commission, therefore, he was not liable to have passed any departmental examination. In this context, he has challenged the rules for appointment of Probationer Accountants in the Pakistan Military Accounts Department on the ground that these rules are in violation of the Civil Servants Act. This contention has no force. The rules have been framed under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. An advertisement for the post was made. The terms and conditions have been laid down in the advertisement. The petitioner fully knew the terms and conditions and had submitted application. After qualifying the test, he was offered a job and in the letter of appointment again it was specifically stated that he had to clear the departmental promotion examination. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now turn somersault and state that the rules are not applicable to him. In the appointment letter, it has been stated that "the probationers have accepted the terms and conditions and they would remain probationers till they have passed the Accountant Promotion Examination Part I and Part II." Section 3 of the Civil Servants Act provides that "the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant shall be as provided in this Act and the rules". The Rules may be framed under section 25 of the Act. Learned counsel has referred to subsection (2) of section 25 and submitted that the rules must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. There is no inconsistency between the rules applicable to the petitioner with the provisions of the Act. Section 5 of the Act contemplates that "appointments shall be made in the prescribed manner by the President or by a person authorised by the President in this behalf". The Rules have been framed by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Servants Act. Section 6(3) of the Act lays down that "where, in respect of any service or post, the satisfactory completion of probation includes the passing of a prescribed examination, test or course or successful completion of any training, a person, appointed on probation to such service or post who, before the expiry of the original or extended period of his probation, has failed to pass such examination or test or to successfully complete course or the training shall, except as may be prescribed otherwise if he was appointed to such service or post by initial recruitment, be discharged". The departmental examination is a requisite qualification under the rules and such requirement is laid down in section 6(3) of the Act.
The Rules are valid and legal. The contention of the learned counsel on this score has no force.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the period of ' probation shall not be more than one year. He has referred to ESTACODE Edition-1989 (page 64, Sr.No,6) wherein it is mentioned that "in view of these rules, it is no longer necessary to frame detailed recruitment rules on the pattern of model recruitment rules. It would suffice if only matters specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 are laid down in a notification. He has referred to paragraph 6 at page 67 wherein the period of probation is given as one year which may be curtailed or extended. This was substituted on 21-9-1982 but this is not stated that the rules framed by the Military Accounts Department are not in existence. There is sanctity of such rules under section 25 of the Civil Servants Act. Rule 3 with regard to terms and conditions for appointment to the present post prescribes a period of two years and it further provides that "if no order is passed at the end of two years it will be extended up to three years". Rule 4 provides that "the probationer shall have to take the successive Accountants Promotion Examinations till they have passed both Part I and II of the Examination and in case a probationer fails to qualify Part I in chances not exceeding three, his services shall be terminated". Rule 5 provides that "no increment will be admissible till their regular appointment". These rules are applicable to the case of the petitioner. The terms and conditions have been specified in the advertisement. A post was offered to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions and he had accepted it. The learned Deputy Attorney-General submitted that the petitioner has accepted the post of Senior Auditor. The above facts would disentitle the petitioner to any relief. He has been dealt with in accordance with law.
There is no violation of any terms and conditions relating to the petitioner. This petition has no force.
7. In the case of Rahim Shah (C.P. No, 169/1991), in addition to the abovementioned grounds, the learned counsel has taken another ground that the petitioner is not being permitted to appear in the C.S.S. Examination. According to rule 11 a probationer will not be allowed to apply for any appointment outside the department during the period of probation and also until he has put in five years' service after passing the Accountant Promotion Examination. The petitioner Rahim Shah had accepted this condition at the time of his appointment and there is no violation of any rule.
The petitioner cannot force the respondent to permit him to appear in the CSS Examination as he had himself given an undertaking. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ghulam Sarwar v. Pakistan (PLD 1962 S.C. 142) but this authority is inapt to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. There is no force in these petitions. Both the petitions are consequently dismissed.