IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C J.--Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.4 to 10 of 2001, Civil Petitions Nos.1778, 1779 of 2001 and 1780 of 2001, Civil Appeals Nos.1283 of 1999 and 1297/1999, which have respectively arisen out of judgments dated 8-8-2000, 26-4-2001, 16-6-2001, 23-6-1999 and 11-11-1998, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, High Court of Balochistan, Quetta and Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. It would suffice to give brief facts of the case in Civil Appeal No,4 of 2001, in that, similar facts and circumstances have been stated in other connected appeals/petitions, involving the same questions of law and facts. Respondent No,1 in the said appeal acquired 509th position in the overall merit list and 13th position among the candidates of Sindh Urban area eligible for appointment in the Trade and Commerce Group. According to him, the respondent No,2 herein, who was placed at Serial No,462 of the merit list, was required to be treated as a candidate from Sindh Rural on account of birth of his father in rural area and he had no right to claim a seat reserved for those from the urban area of the Province under rule 6(a)(iii) of the Competitive Examination Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the Rules). But respondent No,2 was subsequently appointed against a seat reserved for Sindh Urban in violation of Rule 6(a)(iii) of the Rules and respondent No,1 was thus deprived of that seat. Respondent No,2 took the plea that he was entitled to be appointed against Sindh Urban seat in view of a domicile certificate and the fact that he resided in urban area, in spite of the fact that his father was born in rural area.
3. The respondents in Civil Appeals Nos.4 to 10 of 2001 and Civil Petitions Nos. 1778 and 1780 of 2001 as well as appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 1283 and 1297 of 1999, who were successful. Candidates of C.S.S. Examination, assailed the validity of rule 6(a)(iii) of the Rules by filing Constitutional petitions before the respective High Courts because each of them felt aggrieved by the application of the said rule, which reads thus: "In the case of candidate whose father belongs by birth or origin to a Pakistan Province/area it is immaterial where he/she has received his/her education or has resided. Such a candidate will be considered for appointment against the quota of vacancies reserved for the province/area to which his/her father belonged."
4. During hearing of the above cases, it transpired that notice was not given to the Attorney- General for Pakistan as required under Order XXVIII-A, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in any of these cases by the respective High Courts. Clearly, failure of the respective High Courts to give effect to the mandatory provisions of Order XXVII-A, rule 1, C.P.C. Has vitiated the impugned judgments, in that, the cases involved interpretation of Constitutional provisions. It is not controverted by any of the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy raised before the High Courts as to the vires of rule 6(a)(iii) of the Rules had been examined in the absence of the Attorney-General for Pakistan. The material placed on record does not show that any notice was issued to him.
5. When faced with this, Mr. Abdur Rahim Kazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of respondents in Civil Petitions Nos.1778 and 1779 contended that there was substantial compliance of Order XXVII-A, rule 1, C.P.C., inasmuch as, full hearing was afforded to the Federal Government, which was represented by the Deputy Attorney-General.
6. We are afraid, the mere hearing of the Deputy Attorney-General and affording full opportunity to the Federal Government or the Federal Public Service Commission does not constitute substantial compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order XXVII-A, rule 1, C.P.C. Which provide in unequivocal terms that: "in any suit in which it appears to the Court that any substantial question as to the interpretation of Constitutional law is involved, the Court shall not proceed to determine the question until after notice has been given to the Attorney-General for Pakistan if the question of law concerns the Central Government and to the Advocate-General of.The Province if the question of law concerns a Provincial' Government". Refer Federation of Pakistan v. Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao PLD 1992 SC 723. Here, as stated above, no notice was given to the Attorney-General for Pakistan, therefore, the impugned judgments stand vitiated on this ground alone.
7. Resultantly, we allow Appeals Nos.4 to 10 of 2001 and set aside the impugned judgments therein.
We also convert Civil Petitions Nos. 1778, 1779 and 1780 of 2001 into appeals and while allowing the same set aside the impugned judgments rendered therein. These cases are remanded with the direction to the respective High Courts that before proceeding to determine the question involved in the matters, notice be issued to the Attorney-General for Pakistan in terms of Order XXVII-A, rule 1, C.P.C.
8. Insofar as Civil Appeals Nos. 1283 and 1297 of 1999 are concerned, the impugned judgments therein have been rendered in favour of the Federal Public Service Commission. As the connected matters have been remanded to the respective High Courts on account of non-issuance of notice to the Attorney-General for Pakistan and as the impugned judgments in these appeals also suffer from the same defect, therefore, the judgments in these appeals are also set aside and the matters remanded to the respective High Courts for decision after issuing notice to the Attorney- General for Pakistan in terms of Order XXVII-A, rule 1, C.P.C.
8-A. All the causes shall be decided by the respective High Courts within 90 days from the receipt of the copy of this judgment.
9. No order as to costs.