' The petitioner has challenged the vires of the rules framed by the respondents through this Constitutional petition whereby the age limit for the candidate for admission of C.S.S. Examination haq been modified/changed from 30 years to 28 years and 35 to 30 years respectively by the respondent.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner had initiated preparation to appear in the examination but all of a sudden the respondents had amended the rule. The petitioner had secured vested right to appear on the basis of the old rules. He further submits that respondents framed the rules in violation of the Article 25 of the Constitution. He further urges that respondents have no lawful authority to amend the earlier rules in derogation of the rights of the petitioner. He summed up his arguments that rules are very harsh.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. It is settled principle of law that this Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law as per principle laid down by the Honourable A Supreme Court in the following judgments: ' The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49).
' Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473).
' This Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker or to take the role of the Legislature or to take the role of rule-making authority in the garb of interpretation. The respondents have lawful B authority to frame the rules and this Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of the rule-making authority. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:-- ' Government of Pakistan v. Zamir Ahmad Khan (PLD 1975 SC 667).
' Zamir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Pakistan and another (1978 SCM R 327).
' The question of law has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Federation of Pakistan v. Mirza Muhammad Irfan Baig and 4 others (1992 SCM R 2430). In case the rules are harsh even then this Court has no jurisdiction to strike down the rules as per principles laid down in Samad Khan's case (1993 M LD 726).
5. In view of what has been discussed above, writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is well within his right to avail the proper remedy under the law before the competent authority for relaxation of age.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.