' CH. GHULAM SARWAR, J.---This intra-Court appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, arises out of judgment dated 30-11-1991 passed in Writ Petition No, 894 of 1991 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the Federal Public Service Commission invited applications for recruitment of Law Office, Central Directorate of National Savings, Finance Division, Islamabad, In P.B.S.
19. The qualification/experience for the said post were as follows:-
(i) Second Class or Grade 'C' Bachelor's Degree in Law (ii) Twelve years practice at the Bar preferably at judicial or legal side with at least five years in legal matteRs, Or (i) LL.M. Degree or Barrister-at-Law. (ii) Ten years practice at the Bar preferably at judicial or legal side with at least five years in legal matteRs,"
3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Butt, respondent No,3 herein, was selected for the post by the Federal Public Service Commission. The period served by him in the Ministry of Law, Islamabad was also counted towards his practice as an Advocate on the basis of certificate bearing No,6511/Pb. B.C.
Dated 21-8-1990, issued by the Secretary, Punjab Bar Council, Lahore, which may be reproduced:-- "CERTIFICATE ' Certified that Mr. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti was admitted as an Advocate on 6th November, 1974 and practised till his appointment as Legal Assistant in the Ministry, of Law, Islamabad on 14th March 1978, which position he resigned on 30th April, 1981. He is stated to have resumed practice on 1-5-1981, and continued it till 27-6-1987 when he got appointment as Law Officer.Certified further that the Enrolment Committee of this Council, headed by Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain. Sial, has counted the period of his service in the Ministry of Law, Islamabad, from 14th March 1978 to 30th April, 1981, towards his practice as an Advocate."
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein challenged the appointment of respondent No3 through a Constitutional petition which was, however, dismissed on 30-11-1991. The grievance of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that three years of service of respondent No,3 as Legal Assistant in the Ministry of Law, Government of Pakistan, cannot be counted towards the legal practice in the context of the conditions laid down by the Public Service Commission for recruitment of the disputed post and as such the certificate issued by the Enrolment Committee of the Provincial Bar Council was without lawful authority and therefore, respondent No,3 did not possess the requisite qualification and experience for the post. The learned Judge-in-Chamber repelled the contention inter alia with the following observations:-- " It is, therefore, idle to argue that the said period of service could not be counted towards practice as an Advocate. The statutory Committee which is headed by a Senior Judge of this Court examines thoroughly the matter taken before it and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that three years service rendered by respondent No,3 as Legal Assistant in the Law Ministry could not be counted towards legal practice, cannot be accepted. The respondent had produced certificate issued by the Secretary of the Bar Council which in turn is based on the certificate of the statutory Enrolment Committee and as such the Public Service Commission was justified in accepting the respondent as possessing requisite qualifications. This certificate so issued is binding on the commission. The impugned action cannot be held to be illegal, arbitrary or without jurisdiction."
5. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his submission made before the learned Judge-in-Chamber. It was argued that under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 10 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, a Provincial Bar Council is competent to constitute one or more enrolment committees each consisting of a Judge of the High Court for the Province, nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court, who shall be its Chairman, and two other members elected by the Council from amongst its membeRs, The powers and functions of the enrolment committee are prescribed by rules. Placing reliance on the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1974, with particular reference to rule 5.1, it was argued that it was beyond the scope of powers of the Enrolment Committee to count the period of three years of service rendered by respondent No3 as Legal Assistant in the Ministry of Law towards his legal practice.
6. The contention is devoid of any force. A bare reading of rule 5.16 would show that all disputes relating to seniority as an Advocate are determined by the Enrolment Committee. The question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, services rendered by an Advocate in an Organization while doing the work of legal nature can be counted towards his practice as an Advocate, is a matter germane to determination of question of seniority among the Advocates, which falls within exclusive jurisdiction of the Enrolment Committee. Here the Enrolment Committee, after examining all aspects of the case and material placed before it, took a decision that the period of service rendered by respondent No,3 in the Ministry of Law shall be counted towards his practice as an Advocate. The decision was within the competence of the Enrolment Committee, which was validly taken into consideration by the Federal Public Service Commission and, therefore, no illegality was committed in the appointment of respondent No,3 on the facts pleaded before us.
7. It may also be observed that the Enrolment Committee was headed by a Judge of this Court.
Although, while performing his duties and functions as a Chairman of the Enrolment Committee, he was not acting as Judge of the High Court, but as persona designata and, therefore, there was no legal bar to scrutinise the proceedings taken by the Committee merely because it was headed by a Judge of a superior Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
We are, however, inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge that the impugned certificate was granted by the Enrolment Committee after thorough examination of the case and, therefore, this was not a fit case for the exercise of discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, respondent No,3 has been found to be most suitable and fit by the Federal Public Commission qua other applicants. Thus visualised, no injustice has been rendered to the appellant. Additionally, the appointment was made sometime in August, 1990 and the same has since been acted upon, the learned Judge-in-Chamber rightly declined to exercise his discretion while dismissing the writ petition.
8. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq next argued that respondent No,3 was initially not called for interview and, therefore, could not have been provided another chance by the Commission in the absence of any appeal within the statutory period. Here respondent No,3 allegedly filed a time-barred appeal and, therefore, the Commission had no jurisdiction to condone the delay while processing his case for recruitment. This is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction. In any event, impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not show that this point was ever urged although specifically taken in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not stated at the Bar that this point was duly raised, but the learned Judge- in Chamber did not consider it. This plea was, therefore, deemed to have been abandoned.
Resultantly the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.