' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner passed the Matriculation Examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and mentioned the date of birth in his Admissions Form as 15-3-1974. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, issued the certificate of Matriculation to the petitioner with the said date. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief before the Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore, for change of his date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate from 15-3- 1974 to 27-12-1975. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 1-6-1999. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 11-9-2000. The respondent/Commission issued a public notice inviting the application for appearing in the Competitive Examination in the year 2001. The petitioner submitted his application form wherein she has mentioned her date of birth as 15-3-1974. The petitioner could not succeed in the said examination, thereafter respondent/Commission invited applications for the competitive examination. The petitioner submitted her application form for the said examination and in the application form the petitioner had mentioned the date of birth as 27- 12-1975 instead of 15-3-1974. The respondent/ Commission did not entertain the application of the petitioner. The respondent/Commission rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was over aged. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No,7909 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11-6-2003 with the observation that the petitioner in the first instance had to make a representation before the Federal Public Service Commission and also try to obtain the Matriculation Certificate with the corrected date of birth. The petitioner submitted representation before the Commission. The Commission rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 26-7-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Commission passed the impugned order against the petitioner on flimsy ground that the Commission was not impleaded in the civil suit.
The petitioner had filed the civil suit in the year 1999, therefore, petitioner had no grievance against the Commission at that stage. He further submits that the respondents had changed the policy subsequently, therefore, the policy has to take prospective effect and not retrospective effect, therefore, impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan entered appearance on Court's, call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner mentioned her date of birth in her application form in the year 2001 on invitation of the application by the Commission wherein the petitioner has mentioned the date of birth 15-3-1974 whereas the petitioner secured the judgment from the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, on 1-6-1999. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was directed while disposing of the Writ Petition No,7909 of 2003 vide order dated 11-6-2003 to obtain the Matriculation Certificate with the corrected date of birth from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The petitioner did not attach the corrected certificate of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, before the Commission as well as before this Court. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out that action of the respondents is in violation of any rule and regulation of the respondent/Commission, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Meer's case (1984 SCM R 433). It is also admitted fact that the Commission is well within its right to frame the policy, therefore, question of prospective or retrospective effect does not arise in the present case in view of the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Federation of Pakistan v.
Muhammad Arfan Baig (1992 SCM R 2430). It is also settled principle of law that our Constitution is based on trichotomy as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Zia-Ur-Rehman's case (PLD 1973 SC 49). Mian Nawaz Sharif's case (PLD 1993 SC 473).
' This Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law and has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker. This Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the policy matters as the law laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zameer Ahmad Khan's case (1978 SCM R 327). The Honourable Supreme Court has reaffirmed in the said judgment view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Government of Pakistan v. Zameer Ahmad Khan PLD 1975 SC 667).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has E no merit and the same is dismissed.