' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 20- 9-1993 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Constitution petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in limine.
2. The petitioner is a candidate in the election to the National Assembly from Constituency No,NA- 69-Jhang-IV. On the objection raised by a rival candidate the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper filed on her behalf on two grounds, namely:---
(1) a period of two years had no elapsed since she ceased to be in the service of Pakistan; and
(2) her husband was a "loan defaulter".
' From the order of the Returning Officer she filed an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under section 14(5), Representation of the People Act. The Tribunal consisted of two Judges of the Lahore High Court. The learned Tribunal found that the second ground, namely, that her husband was a "loan defaulter" was not valid but that the Returning Officer had rightly held that she was disqualified from contesting election as the period of two years had not elapsed since she ceased to be in the service of Pakistan. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal. The petitioner called in question the legality of the order of the learned Tribunal in writ jurisdiction before the High Court but failed. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are not in dispute. By a letter dated 28-10-1991 the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs appointed the petitioner as Ambassador of Pakistan in Washington. The appointment was on contract and was to last for a period of two years. Her employment could be terminated by the Government after giving her three months' notice without assigning any reason. In matters not specifically covered by the letter of appointment she was to be governed by the rules applicable to the general body of civil servants, such as the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, Government Servants Conduct Rules, and the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
4. One of the clauses in the letter of appointment stated: "You will be deemed to have tendered your resignation if the Government which appointed you goes out of office, unless the new Government expressly permits you to complete your tenure."
' On 18-4-1993 the then President removed the Government which had appointed the petitioner as the Ambassador. Treating the removal of the Government as equivalent to the tendering of resignation on her part she relinquished her office and returned to Pakistan.
5. Article 63(1) of the Constitution sets out the disqualifications from which a candidate at the election to the National Assembly must not suffer. The relevant extract from this Article reads as follows: "A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if --
(d) he holds an office of profit in the service of Pakistan other than an office declared by law not to disqualify its holder;
(i) he has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan on the ground of misconduct, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his dismissal; or
(j) he has been removed or compulsorily retired from the service of Pakistan on the ground of misconduct unless a period of three years has elapsed since his removal or compulsory retirement; or
(k) he has been in the service of Pakistan or of any statutory body or any body which is owned or controlled by the Government or in which the Government has a controlling share or interest, unless a period of two years has elapsed since he ceased to be in such service;
(n) he, whether by himself or by any person or body of persons in trust for him or for his benefit or on his account of as a member of a Hindu undivided family, has any share or interest in a contract, not being a contract between a cooperative society and Government, for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any contract or for the performance of any service undertaken by, Government: ' Provided that the disqualification under this paragraph shall not apply to a person---
(i) where the share or interest in the contract devolves on him by inheritance or succession or as a legatee, executor or administrator, until the expiration of six months after it has so devolved on him;
(ii) where the contract has been entered into by or on behalf of a public company as defined in the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (XLVII of 1984), of which he is a shareholder but is not a director holding an office of profit under the company; or
(iii) where he is a member of a Hindu undivided family and the contract has been entered into by any other member of that family in the course of carrying on a separate business in which he has no share or interest; or ' Explanation.---In this Article 'goods' does not include agricultural produce or commodity grown or produced by him or such goods as he is, under any directive of Government or any law for the time being in force, under a duty or obligation to supply."
' The authorities under the Representation of the People Act have held that the petitioner stood disqualified from contesting the election under sub-clause (k), ibid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contested this finding. His case is that sub-clause (k) is applicable only to those persons who are regularly in the service of Pakistan and that the petitioner could not be regarded as such as she was merely performing a contract which she had entered into with the Government of Pakistan. According to him the test for determining whether a person is or is not in the service of Pakistan lies in discovering whether his terms and conditions of service are regulated by the statute envisaged by Article 240 of the Constitution. Applying this test, he contends, that as the appointment of the petitioner was founded on a contract for a fixed period and her terms and conditions were not regulated by the Civil Servants Act enacted in pursuance of the provision of Article 240, ibid, she could not be treated as one in the service of Pakistan. He also points out that she is not covered by the definition of the expression 'civil servant' as given in the Civil Servants Act.
He further argues that her case fell under clause (n) of Article 63(1) and as the contract of her employment was no longer in force there was no bar to her being a candidate in the election to the National Assembly.
6. It is difficult to subscribe to the contention of the learned counsel. The expression 'service of Pakistan' has been defined in Article 260(1) of the Constitution. It reads as follows:--- "Service of Pakistan' means any service, post or office in connection with the affairs of the Federation or of a Province, and includes an All-Pakistan Service, service in the Armed Forces and any other service declared to be a service of Pakistan by or under Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or of a Provincial Assembly, but does not include service as Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Prime Minister, Federal Minister, Minister of State, Chief Minister, Provincial Minister, Attorney-General, Advocate-General, Parliamentary Secretary or Chairman or member of a Law Commission, Chairman or member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, Advisor to the Prime Minister, Special Assistant to a Chief Minister, Adviser to a Chief Minister or member of a House or a Provincial Assembly;"
' Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly concedes that the post of an Ambassador is a post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. It will be seen that the definition does not take notice of the manner in which a post in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province may be filled. Thus, so far as the inclusion of a post in the service of Pakistan is concerned, it is immaterial whether the holder thereof has come to occupy it through a special contract or in accordance with the recruitment rules framed under the Civil Servants Act; consequently, the mere fact that a person is not a civil servant within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act would not put him beyond the pale of the said Constitutional definition. The contention that the case of the petitioner was covered by sub-clause (n), ibid, is entirely misconceived as ex facie it does not apply to situations where the relationship of master and servant exists between the parties. Here, the petitioner was a whole-time employee of the Government and except for matters which were specifically provided in the letter of appointment she was governed by the ordinary rules of service applicable to the civil servants. It may perhaps be of interest to mention here that these rules were framed in pursuance of the provisions of Article 240, ibid. Thus, the assertion on her behalf that while serving as an Ambassador she could not be treated as one in the service of Pakistan merely because her appointment to the post owed its origin to a special contract cannot be accepted. Admittedly, a period of two years has not passed since she relinquished charge of the said post. Therefore, she has been rightly held to be suffering from the disqualification laid down in clause (k), ibid. We find merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.