' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The petitioner herein secured his appointment as an Assistant Director (Chemical) in the Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, in July, 1990 on ad hoc basis i,e, otherwise than through the regular procedure prescribed for appointment to such posts. He is continuing in the said Directorate and is presently stated to be posted as Principal of the Government Weaving and Finishing Institute, Lahore. A requisition for the regular selection, for the said post of the Assistant Director was sent to the Punjab Public Service Commission (P.P.S.C.) in the year 1993 and applications were invited for the said post by the P.P.S.C. In the year 1994. The petitioner also applied for the same but was not called for interview as he stood eliminated from the contest on account of short-listing. He approached this Court with Writ Petition No, 934 of 1995. As an interim relief, he was directed by this Court to be interviewed by the P.P.S.C.
And through a further order his result was directed to be declared. This petition was finally allowed by this Court on 24-2-1998. The petitioner then filed a contempt petition bearing Criminal Original No, 782-W of 1998 and notice was issued in the said petition. The P.P.S.C. Submitted a reply stating therein that the recommendation in favour of the petitioner had been withheld by the said Commission not in breach of the order passed by this Court in the earlier mentioned Writ Petition No, 934 of 1995 but because in the meantime the Supreme Court. Of Pakistan had intervened to declare that the quota system stood abolished because of the expiry of the twenty years term mentioned in Article 27 of the Constitution and that the petitioner could not qualify for the post in question on the basis of open merit.
2. In this view of the matter, the said contempt petition was dismissed with an observation that if the petitioner felt that the respondent-Commission had acted illegally in not following the quota system then he would be at liberty to challenge the said action of the P.P.S.C. By way of independent proceedings. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since the process of selection of the petitioner for the post in question had commenced before the announcement of the judgment in question by the Supreme Court, therefore, the dictum laid in the said judgment could not be made retroactive and could not be enforced to the prejudice of the petitioner. In support of this contention the learned counsel pressed into service Annexures B, E, F, G, G/1, H, I, J, K, L, M. N and 0 which are uncertified copies of inter-departmental communications between different departments and organs of the Government of Punjab.
4. The Constitution of Pakistan of 1973 commands through Article 27(1) that no citizen otherwise qualified for the appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground only of Race, Religion, Caste, Sex, Residence or Place of Birth.
Through the first proviso to the said sub-Article, an exception was, however, created and the respective Governments and authorities were permitted to reserve posts for persons belonging to any class or area in order to secure their adequate representation in the Services of Pakistan. This exception was to last for twenty years from the commencing date i,e, from 14-8-1973. This term of twenty years expired on 13-8-1993. Consequently, after the said date in the year 1993 this enabling provision for reserving quota for persons belonging to different areas ceased to be operative. It was then through an Amending Act No,VII of 1999 that the word "Twenty" appearing in the said proviso to Article 27 of the Constitution was substituted by the word "forty" and it was further provided through the said Amending Act that the said first proviso shall be deemed always to have mentioned forty years instead of the term of twenty years in question. Thus, the position, as it stands today is that the break which had come about from the year 1993 till the year 1999 would, be deemed never to have come about as the first proviso would be read always to have mentioned a term of forty years instead of twenty years.
5. The question is as to what is the position of the actions taken by the -concerned authorities from 1993 to the year 1999 and thereafter.
6. A bare perusal of the provisions of Article 27(1) would demonstrate that the Constitution prohibits discrimination of citizens in the matter of appointment to the service of Pakistan, inter alia, on the basis of residence or place of birth. The effect of the first proviso to the said sub-Article is only to enable different authorities to reserve posts for persons belonging to different classes or areas to secure their adequate representation in the services of Pakistan. This proviso is only enabling and permissive in nature. It can never be read to mean that all Governments and authorities are under any direction by the Constitution to mandatorily reserve. Seats for persons belonging to different areas. Only a provision has been made allowing any Government or authority to follow quota system if it so desires. No Government or authority is, however, under any compulsion to reserve seats for persons belonging to certain areas. Therefore, no right vests in any citizen to seek a direction from this Court to any Government or authority to provide for special exclusive seats for such persons belonging to different districts or areas of the province. The discretion is left to such an employer to keep or not to keep such special seats. If someone wishes to follow it he may do so and if any department does not consider it necessary or appropriate to do so then it is at liberty not to do it.
7. In this view of the matter, despite the abovementioned amendment in Article 27(1) of the Constitution, no Government or authority is under any obligation to do what the petitioner desires them to do. No one, as has been mentioned above, has any right to claim seats on the basis of any quota for any class of persons or for persons belonging to a particular area.
8. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.
9. Before we part with this judgment we would like to express our displeasure over this conduct of the petitioner who had appended documents with this petition i,e, the abovementioned Annexures which he had obtained otherwise than in accordance with law. It may be stated here that even such a misconduct on the part of any litigant was sufficient to disqualify him for the grant of any discretionary relief.