The dispute in this case relates to method of recruitment to the post of Chief Security Officer/Seargent-at-Arm (BS-17). It is an admitted fact that vide Notification No. ESTB/E-164/86/65, dated 14-11-1987, in pursuance of the provisions contained in rule 5(2) of the Punjab Provincial Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1986, the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab prescribed the minimum qualifications, experience and method of recruitment to the Security posts in the Provincial Assembly Secretariat. For the post in dispute, the qualification laid down was: -
(i) by transfer of a person holding post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from Police Department; and
(ii) by promotion, of the Security Officer with at least 3 years service as such.
2. The method of recruitment was amended by special order dated 10-8-1991, whereby it was decided that the post in question shall be filled in as follows: - "by direct recruitment preferably from amongst the ex-army officers not below the rank of a `Major' of Pakistan Army with sufficient experience of Security and intelligence."
On the basis of the aforesaid amendment in the rules respondent No. 2 advertised the post of Chief Security Officer in BS-17 in the daily `Jang', Lahore, dated 4-9-1991. According to the advertisement, qualification prescribed for the post was (i) a decree-holder from a recognised University; or (ii) a retired Major having sufficient experience of security and intelligence.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the amendment was not made competently, in that, the Governor of the Punjab never approved the amendment in the existing rules. The contention is devoid of any force. According to rule 5(2) of the Punjab Provincial Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1986 framed under clauses (2) and (3) of Article 87 of the Constitution read with Article 127 of the Constitution, the Speaker is entitled to, by a special order, specify tile method by which recruitment is to be made, from time to time and, therefore, the amendment in the method of recruitment does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petitioner, is, therefore, not an "aggrieved person" within the purview of Article 199 of the Constitution and has no locus standi to challenge the impugned amendment in the rules. The matter exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, who has competently framed the impugned rules. Refer Ch. Muhammad Insha Ullah and others v. Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E)
Punjab and others PLD 1988 SC 155. Wherein the principle was reiterated that the Government was entitled to make rules in the interest of efficiency of service and the rules of promotion could be changed without in any manner affecting the rights of those yet to be promoted. Furthermore, the prospects of promotion of a civil servant are not justiciable in writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that pursuant to the impugned advertisement, It.- Col. (Retd.) Zafar Javed has been appointed as Chief Security Officer on 5-1-1992, but the petitioner has neither impleaded him as party to the writ petition nor amended the same to challenge his appointment.
In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.