' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner in advertisement of the respondents appeared in the Central Superior Services (CSS) Examination, 1997, and obtained 67th position in the final merit list in spite of the fact that the petitioner obtained 296 marks in compulsory subjects and got 21st position in the merit list. After the viva voce examination his position step down from 21st position to 32nd position. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner's position in over all merit list figured as 67th position as the petitioner did not get high marks in optional papers despite the fact that petitioner did extremely well. He further stated that the absurdity in the result occurred when the candidates had to pick optional subjects and it is not possible for candidates from arts or non-technical backgrounds to pick up subjects like Applied Mathematics, Physics or Statistics carrying absolute marking facility. The science students who selected science subjects in optional papers obtained the highest position. Therefore, the rules of the respondent is hit by the Article 25 of the Constitution as the arts candidates have no choice to opt the Applied Mathematics, Physics, Statistics. This fact is well-compared with the written test of the compulsory subjects in which the petitioner obtained high marks and it is not possible for candidates who opted arts subjects like International relations, British History and Geography to compete with the candidates who opted as mentioned above Applied Mathematics, Physics, Statistics. Therefore, to combine technical and non-technical subjects through the CSS Examination is hit by the Article 25 of the Constitution as is evident that the candidates who had appeared in Applied Mathematics secured highest 93% average 82% and lowest 65% whereas the candidates in International Relations secured highest 63% average, 53% and lowest 43%. Therefore, rules of the respondent ex facie discriminatory as and when the rules are put in practice by virtue of discretion to the functionary it becomes discriminatory. He further stated that the impugned marking system of the respondent is also hit by Article 2-A of the Constitution whereas the Punjab Public ' Service Commission has already changed its rules. He summed up his arguments that the rules are very harsh and unreasonable and non-existence in the modern age. Therefore, rules are liable to be struck down as the same are in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the petitioner as the rules are against the spirit of Article 25 of the Constitution. He relied upon the following judgments:
(i) AIR 1981 SC (ii) 537, AIR 1993 (iii) SC 477, 1991 (iv) CLC 13,
(v) AIR 1974 SC (vi) 2009, 1997 SCM R 641, PLD 1996 Karachi 1. 1995 M LD 15.
2. Learned Deputy Attorney-General contended that this system of examination was introduced by British Rulers and the same was adopted in Pakistan since 1948 and in India. The position of the candidates is always determined after adding the marks obtained in written examination of compulsory and optional subjects and the viva voce. Petitioner has given the following undertaking which is part of the Rules in paras.37 and 38: "37 I certify that the statements I have made in this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that if any above statement is false in any material respect or omits any material information relevant to my previous examinations, Service, etc., my application is liable to be rejected and if appointed my appointment is liable to be cancelled.
"38 I have read and understood the Rules for Competitive Examination, the Regulations for the Physical Examination and the Instructions to Candidates before filing this application form and agree to abide by them."
Therefore, petitioner is estopped to challenge the rules of the respondents on the well-known principle of estoppel and waiver. He further stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker. It is prerogative of the respondents to frame rules. Petitioner has to appear in the examination in accordance with the rules framed by the respondents.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. The Indian Supreme Court has considered rules of the Public Service Commission in the following judgments:
(i) AIR 1995 SC 904 (Shabha Chandra Verma and others v. State of Bahar and others),
(ii) AIR (1994) 1 SCC 150 (Ansar Ahmad v. State of Bahar.
(iii) AIR (1981) SC 1777 (Lala Dar v. State of Ragistan). ' and laid down the following principle:--- "It has now been settled that the best method of selecting the merit of candidates by open examination is to combine a written test with an interview or viva voce test and further observed that there also no hard and fast rule regarding the precise weightage to be given viva voce test as against the written examination can be laid down. The weightage must very according to the requirements of service."
' It is also the duty and obligation of Commission in the matter of selection of candidates the Commission must faithfully the followed the statutory rules of recruitment relating to the service in question. I am fortified by the Indian Supreme Court 1987 UJSC 657 (Durgachuran v. State of Orissa). It is admitted fact that the rules do not prohibit the petitioner to select the Applied Mathematics, Physics etc. Therefore, rules are not framed by the respondents in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. It is also admitted position that our Constitution is based on trichotomy as the principle lay down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zia-urRehman's case PLD 1973 SC 49 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif's case PLD 1993. SC 473. This Court has only power to interpret the law and this Court has no power whatsoever to take the role of the policy maker. It is the prerogative of the policy maker to make the policy and frame the rules and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the policy maker as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:
(i) 1978 SCM R 327 (Zameer Ahmad Khan's case).
(ii) PLD 1975 SC 667.
(iii) 1995 CLC 1687 (M.D. Tahir Advocate v. Chief Secretary Government of the Punjab).
It is also settled proposition of law that rules of the respondent could not be changed through verdict of High Court by substituting or legislating new rules in place of the rules framed by the respondent as the principle laid down by this Court in Zaheer Aslam's case 1995 CLC 1152. The rules were framed by the competent Authority and this Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the same as the principle laid down by this Court in Muhammad Mansha's case 1995 CLC 1222. This judgment was approved by the Division Bench of this Court. This proposition was considered by the Indian Supreme Court (1984) 4 SCC 27 (Maharashtra State Board High Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhubeshkumar Sheth and others, and observed as under: "The legal position is now well established that even a bye law cannot be struck down by the Court on the ground of unreasonableness merely because the Court thinks it goes further than ' is necessary' or that it does not incorporate certain provisions which, in the opinion of the Court, would have been fair and wholesome. The Court cannot say that any bye law is unreasonable merely because Judges do not approve of it. Unless it can be said that a bye-law is in manifestly unjust, carious, inequitable, or partial in its operation, it cannot be invalidated by the Court on the ground of unreasonableness."
It is pertinent to mention here that' the petitioner firstly appeared in the examination in the year 1995 and subsequently appeared in the present , examination. Therefore, petitioner is estopped to agitate the same on the well-known principle of approbate and reprobate as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1971 SC 376.
4. In view that has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.