2013 P L C (C.S.) 81
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Qazi Faez Isa, C.J. and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, J
HAROON -UR-RASHID and others
Versus
REGISTRAR BALOCHISTAN HIGH COUR T, QUETTA and others
Constitutional Petitions Nos.247, 266, 306, 317 and 376 of 2012, decided on 22nd June,
2012.
(a) Balochistan Additional District and Sessions Judges and District and Sessions
Judges Service Rules, 2002 ---
----Rr. 5 & 7 ---Constitu tion of Pakistan, Art.199 ---Constitutional petition ---Assistant District
Attorney applying for recruitment for Additional District and Sessions Judges ---Entitlement --
-Petitioners' (Assistant District Attorneys) grievance was that they had been disallowed t o
apply for the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges ---Validity ---Requirement under
R.7 of Balochistan Additional District and Sessions Judges and District and Sessions Judges
Service Rules, 2002, was that an applicant should be a law graduate from recognized
university and should have at least five years practice as an advocate ---If Assistant District
Attorney was a law graduate and had practiced as an advocate for a period of five years
he/she was entitled to apply for such pos t---Petition was allowed accordingly.
(b) Balochistan Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates Service Rules, 2002 ---
----R. 6(ii) ---Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance (XL of 1981),
S.2---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.25, 27, 34, 36 & 199 ---Constitutional petition ---Quota
seats ---Disabled persons, women and minorities ---Petitioners assailed seats reserved for such
persons at the time of recruitment for the posts of Civil Judges cum Judicial Magistrates ---
Validity ---Category of wome n and minorities could be considered to be a 'class' as envisaged
in first proviso to Art.27(1) of the Constitution and the class was reasonable classification ---
Special quota fixed for women and non -Muslims was neither illegal nor unconstitutional ---
Thoug h category/classification of disabled persons did not find specific mention in the
Constitution but the same could be categorized as a 'class' in terms of first proviso to
Art.27(1) of the Constitution and Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation)
Ordinance, 1981, was also enacted by the Legislature ---Challenge to special quota for
disabled persons, therefore, failed and High Court declared that the same would be taken
into consideration wherever applicable ---Petition was allowed accordingly .
Mushtaq Ahmed Moral v. The Hon'ble Lahore High Court, 1997 SCMR 1043;
Obaidullah v. Habibullah, PLD 1997 SC 835; Riaz Hanif Rahi v. Registrar, Lahore High
Court PLD 2008 SC 587; Muhammad Asim Kurd v. Assistant Commissioner -Cum -Returning
Officer 1996 CLC 1772; Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir PLD 1997 SC 304; Shrin Munir v.
Government of Punjab PLD 1990 SC 295; Mrs. Azra Sahi v. Government of Pakistan 2004
PLC (C.S.) 206; Muhammad Majid v. United Bank Ltd. 2006 CLD 186; Muhammad Ikram
Chaudhry v. Federation o f Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 103 and Asif Saeed v. Registrar. Lahore
High Court PLD 1999 Lah. 350 ref.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 199 ---Constitutional petition ---Maintainability ---Administrative decision of Registrar
of High Court ---Constituti onal petition was not maintainable against the High Court but
against the order of the Registrar of the Court.
Muhammad Aslam Chishti for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No.247 of 2012).
Nadir Ali Chalgari and Khurshid Anwar Khosa for Petiti oners (in Constitutional
Petition No.266 of 2012).
Ehsan Rafiq Rana for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No.306 of 2012).
Obaidullah Quresh for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No.317 of 2012).
Najamuddin Mengal for Petitioners (in C onstitutional Petition No.376 of 2012).
Tariq Ali Tahir, Addl. A. -G. for Respondents.
Dates of hearing: 24th, 28th May, 2012.
JUDGMENT
QAZI FAEZ ISA, C.J.. --- Applications were invited for initial recruitment to the
posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge (B -20), Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates (B -
18) and Qazis, (B -18) through advertisement issued by the Registrar of the High Court of
Balochistan, published on December 17, 2011 in daily Jang, Mashriq, Bakhabar, Intikhab
(Urdu newspapers ) and Dawn (English newspaper). The qualifications and experience
required in respect of the said posts were as under: ---
1. Additional District and Sessions Judge (B -20)
Qualification and Experience; Law graduate from a recognized University and should
have practiced as an Advocate for at least five (5) years
Age Between 30 to 45 years
Gender Both male and Female eligible.
2 Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate (B -18).
Qualification and Experience Law graduate from a recognized University or a Barrister
Age Between 21 to 30 years.
Gender Both male and female eligible.
3. Qazi (B -18)
Qualification and Experience; Sanad in Dars -e-Nizami from a recognized Dar -ul-Ulum or
Law graduate from recognized University or both.
CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICA TIONS IS FEBRUARY 15, 2012
(a) The complete application forms along with attachments must reach the
Registrar's office, High Court of Balochistan by hand or by mail on or
before February 15, 2012 during office hours.
(b) Syllabus and application forms to be collected from the Registrar's Office.
District and Sessions Judges or downloaded from Balochistan High Court
website www.bhc.gov.pk.
Date and time of test will be announced/intimated later.
The advertisement further stated, that, the eligibility of the candidates as stipulated in the
Government of Balochistan Recruitment Policy of 1991 (hereinafter "the Policy") would be
applicable.
2. In continuation of the aforesaid advertisement Notification No.573/120/Est: dated
February 22, 2012 ("Notifica tion") was issued by the Registrar of the Balochistan High
Court. The Notification is reproduced hereunder: ---
"(1) On the request of lawyers, the date of submission of applications for the posts of
Additional District and Sessions Judges, Civil Judges/J udicial Magistrates and Qazis is
hereby extended by a period of fifteen (15) days.
(2) Applicants found not eligible will be given ten (10) days to address discrepancy, if
possible.
(3) Applicants who are under/over age and in case they seek age relaxa tion should submit
separate applications justifying the same.
(4) Eligible applicants will be required to give written test on the date subsequently
notified and successful candidates will be called for interview. Recruitments shall be made in
accordance with applicable rules.
(5) Detail of vacancies is as under: ---
(a) Additional District and Sessions Judges 13
(b) Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrate 38
(c) Qazis 11
Special Quotas.
(1) Disabled persons 2%
(2) Women 5%
(3) Non-Muslim 5%
A. Additional District and Sessions Judges.
(1) Total Sanctioned strength 32 posts.
(2) 50% quota for initial recruitment 16 posts.
(3) Available vacancies 13 posts.
Quota Allocation.
Disabled persons qu ota. 2% 16x2/100=0.32 share Nil.
Non-Muslim quota. 5% 16x5/100=0.8 share 1 post.
Women quota. 5% 16x5/100=0.8 share 1 post.
Zonal Allocation.
Merit 2
Kalat Zone 2
Zhob Zone 2
Naseeerabad Zone 1
Mekran Zone 1
Quetta Zone 1
Sibi Zone 1
Quetta City 1
Total: 11+1+1=13
B. Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates.
(1) Total Sanctioned strength 109 posts.
(2) 85% quota for initial recruitment 93 posts.
(3) Available vacancies 38 posts.
Quota Allocation.
Disabled persons quota. 2% 93x2/100=2.18 share 2 posts
Non-Muslim quota. 5% 93x5/100=5.45 share 5 post.
Women quota.5% 93x5/100 -5.45 share 5 post.
Zonal Allocation.
Merit 5
Kalat Zone 5
Zhob Zone 3
Naseerabod Zone 3
Mekran Zone 3
Quetta Zone 3
Sibi Zone 2
Quetta City 2
Total: 26+02+05+05=38
C. Qazis.
(1) Total sanctioned strength 30 posts
(2) 100% quota for initial recruitment 30 posts
(3) Available vacancies 11 posts
Quota Allocation.
Disabled persons quota 2% 30x2/100=0.6 share 1 post
Non-Muslim quota. 5% 30x5/100 -1.5 share 2 posts
Women quota 5% 30x 5/100=1.5 share 2 posts
Zonal Allocation.
Merit 1
Kalat Zone 1
Zhob Zone 1
Naseerabad 1
Mekran Zone 1
Quetta Zone 1
Total: 6+1+2+2=11"
3. The petitioners in C.Ps.Nos.247 of 2012, 317 o f 2012 and 376 of 2012 are serving as
Assistant District Attorneys and had submitted applications for the post of Additional District
and Sessions Judges, however, their applications were not entertained. In this regard the
Assistant Registrar had submitte d a note dated March 27, 2012, which was approved by the
Registrar on the same day. The said note is reproduced hereunder: ---
"Upon an Advertisement in Daily Newspapers, 21 candidates who are holding regular
appointment in different departments had also applied, for the post of Additional District and
Sessions Judge. Copy of the list of those candidates is Flag -"A".
Rule -5 of the D&SJ and Addl. D&SJs Service Rules prescribe three kinds of quota
i.e. initial, promotion and by transfer. The Provincial a nd Central Government officers have
transfer quota, under the Rules, therefore, apparently they are ineligible to apply for the posts,
reserved for initial recruitment. In presence of specific provision in the Rules, their
applications are not entertainabl e. Even none of them had filed any application for
exemption, like that of Judicial Officers, who are having 'promotion quota' under the Rules.
If approved, the applications of all such candidates, who are also holding regular
appointment may not be con sidered, in view of the above legal position."
Constitution Petitioin No.266 of 2012 is filed by two practicing lawyers who had applied for
the post of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, but their application was not entertained as they
were considered to be overage. And, C.P. No.306 of 2012 is filed by a non - practicing
Advocate, whose application was rejected on the ground of her being overage.
4. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Mr. Obaidullah Quresh, and Mr. Najamuddin
Mengal, Advocates respectively repres ent the petitioners in C.Ps. Nos.247 of 2012, 317 of
2012 and 376 of 2012. Mr. Nadir Ali Chalgari and Mr. Zahoor -ul-Haq Chishti, Advocates
respectively represent the petitioners in C.Ps. Nos.266 of 2012 and 306 of 2012. Mr.
Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocat e stated that the petitioner had the requisite qualification
and experience and thus entitled to submit an application for the post of Additional District
and Sessions Judge. In addition, the learned counsel assailed the following special quotas that
had b een reserved for disabled persons, women and non -Muslims:
* Disabled persons 2%
* Women 5%
* Non-Muslim 5%
He also placed reliance upon the following cases: ---
Mushtaq Ahmed Moral v. The Hon'ble Lahore, High Court, 1997 SCMR 1043 and
Obaid ullah v. Habibullah, PLD 1997 SC 835
The said special quotas were assailed by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate on the
ground that the said quotas were not justified and violated the equality principle enshrined in
sub-Article (1) of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which stipulates that all citizens
are equal before the law. He further stated that disabled persons, women and non -Muslims do
not suffer any discrimination and are not faced with any difficulty in acquiring education and
law deg rees, therefore, there is no need to preserve a special quota for them. He lastly stated,
that, Government policies, including the Policy, is not binding on the High Court and nothing
mandates that it be followed. Mr. Obaidullah Quresh and Mr. Najamuddin M engal,
Advocates adopted the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate to the extent
of the eligibility of the petitioners, but stated that they do not assail the special quotas
reserved for disabled persons, women and non -Muslims.
5. On the ques tion of eligibility Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate stated that the
petitioner is a law graduate, enrolled as an Advocate and had over five years experience when
he was appointed as an Assistant District Attorney, and after obtaining the permission of the
Government of Balochistan submitted an application for consideration to the post of
Additional District and Sessions Judge. Learned counsel stated that the reason cited by the
Registrar for not entertaining the petitioner's application could not be su stained in view of the
applicable rules. i.e. the Balochistan Additional District and Sessions Judges and District and
Sessions Judges Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter the "2002 Rules"). Rule 5 and Rule 7 of the
2002 Rules respectively provide the 'Method of Recruitment' and `Qualification and
Experience' in respect of Additional District and Sessions Judges. The relevant portions from
the said two Rules are respectively reproduced hereunder:
Rule 5: Method of recruitment. --- Appointment to the posts of A dditional District and
Sessions Judges shall be made:
(a) By initial recruitment against 50% of the posts on the recommendation of the Board
based on result of the examination and interview conducted by it on the subjects specified by
the Board.
(b) By promotion against 40% of the posts on the recommendation of the Promotion
Committee by the Chief Justice from amongst the Senior Civil Judges on the basis of
seniority -cum-fitness.
(c) By transfer against the remaining 10% of the posts from the officers belonging to
Central and Provincial Government by the Chief Justice:
Provided that if no suitable officers are available by transfer, the appointment against
the reserved quota as mentioned in clause (c) may be made by promotion on the
recommen dation of the Promotion Committee by the Chief Justice from amongst the Senior
Civil Judges."
Rule 7: Qualification and experience. --- In case of appointment of Additional District and
Sessions Judges through initial recruitment, a person should be law g raduate from a
recognized University and should have at least five years practice as an Advocate."
Learned counsel also placed reliance upon Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution, the
relevant portions whereof are reproduced hereunder:
"Article 18. --- Subject to such qualifications, if any as may be prescribed by law,
every citizen shall have the right to enter any lawful profession or occupation."
"Article 25(1). --- All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection
of law."
Mr. Obaidullah Quresh, Advocate cited the case of Riaz Hanif Rahi v. Registrar, Lahore High
Court PLD 2008 Supreme Court 587, and stated that the same was fully applicable to the
facts of his case.
6. Mr. Nadir Ali Chalgari, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.P. No.266 of 2012
stated that the date of birth of petitioner No.1 was April 4, 1980 and of the petitioner No.2
was July 9, 1979, therefore, the petitioner No.1 was 32 years of age and petitioner No.2 was
33 years of age, when they ha d applied for the post of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate.
Reliance was placed upon Rule 6(ii) of the Balochistan Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates
Service Rules, 2002 and it was stated that the said sub -rule permits three years age relaxation
in respect o f practicing lawyers. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel it would
be appropriate to reproduce Rule 6: ---
"6. Age. --- No person, who is less than 21 years or more than 30 years of age shall be
appointed to the service by initial recruitme nt; provided that:
(i) in the case of Government servant who has served in connection with the affairs of
the province of Balochistan for a period of not less than four years, the upper age limits shall
be 35 years;
(ii) in the case of a Barrister or a n Advocate of High Court and the Courts subordinate
there to, or a pleader, the period during which he practiced at a Bar subject to maximum
period of three years shall for the purpose of the upper age limit under this rule, be excluded
from his age; and
(iii) in the case of a person whose services under Government have been terminated for
want of a vacancy the period of service already rendered by him shall, for the purpose of
upper age limits under this rule, be excluded from his age.
(2) For the purp ose of this rule, age shall be reckoned as on the 1st of January of the year
in which the examination is proposed to be held."
Learned counsel stated that practicing lawyers, as per the provisions of sub -Rule (ii)
of Rule 6, were entitled to an exclusio n of three years from their age and if such three years
are excluded both the petitioners would be eligible for consideration. Mr. Zahoor -ul-Haq
Chishti, Advocate adopted the submissions of Mr. Nadir Ali Chalgari, Advocate, however,
upon being questioned a s to whether the petitioner was a practicing Advocate, replied in the
negative, and stated that she was a housewife.
7. It would be appropriate to reproduce the following portion from our order dated April
17, 2012 (in C.P. No.247 of 2012): ---
"In vie w of the fact that this petition may adversely effect the interest of the
Advocates, it would be appropriate to issue notice to the Balochistan Bar Council, High Court
Bar Association and Balochistan Bar Association. Copy of the petition and the order pass ed
today be also affixed on the notice board of the High Court, Sessions Courts and District
Courts and any Advocate who considers that he may be adversely effected by the petition
may appear. Petitioner is directed to file 12 additional sets of the petiti on and upon receipt of
the same, office to send 2 copies each to the Balochistan Bar Council, High Court Bar
Association and Balochistan Bar Association and also to two lady Advocates, two non -
Muslim Advocates and two disabled Advocates who have applied fo r the post of Civil Judge
cum Magistrate, Qazi and or Additional Sessions Judge."
Consequently, upon issuance of notices, Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate appeared for
non-Muslims, ladies and disabled persons. Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Shahwani, Mr. Ali Ahmed
Kurd, Mr . Nusrat Afghani and Miss Andleeb Qaisrani, Advocates appeared on behalf of
women. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of women stated that reserving a special quota
for women did not violate sub -Article (1) of Article 25 as sub -Article (3) of the same Art icle
enabled the State to make special provisions for the protection of women. The said counsel
and Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate placed reliance upon the first proviso to sub -Article (1) of
Article 27 of the Constitution, reproduced hereunder: --
"Provided that, for a period not exceeding forty years from the commencing day,
posts may be reserved for persons belonging to any class or area to secure their adequate
representation in the service of Pakistan."
Reliance was also placed upon Articles 34 and 36, respectively reproduced hereunder: ---
Article 34:
"Steps shall be taken to ensure full participation of women in all spheres of national
life."
Article 36:
"The State shall safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of minorities, including
their due representation in the Federal and Provincial services."
The following cases were also cited in support of their contention: ---
Muhammad Asim Kurd v. Assistant Commissioner -cum-Returning Officer 1996 CLC
1772
Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir PLD 1 997 SC 304
Shrin Munir v. Government of Punjab PLD 1990 SC 295
Mrs. Azra Sahi v. Government of Pakistan 2004 PLC (C.S.) 206
None of the learned counsel however opposed Assistant District Attorneys from applying for
the post of Additional District a nd Sessions Judges, provided they had the requisite
qualification and experience.
8. Mr. Tariq Ali Tahir, learned Additional Advocate -General raised a preliminary legal
objection, that, a writ could not be issued against the High Court, and in this regar d placed
reliance upon the following cases: ---
Muhammad Majid v. United Bank Ltd. 2006 CLD 186
Muhammad lkram Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 103
Asif Saeed v. Registrar. Lahore High Court PLD 1999 Lahore 350
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Ch ishti, Advocate stated that the objection as to the maintainability
taken by the learned Additional Advocate General was not sustainable as the petitions had not
been filed against any administrative decision taken by the Chief Justice or by the
Administra tive Committee comprising of High Court Judges, but filed against the decision of
the Registrar of the High Court. In view of the objection taken to the maintainability of the
petition it would be appropriate to decide the said objection first. In these pe titions the orders
of the Registrar of the High Court of Balochistan have been assailed and not any
administrative order of the Chief Justice or any order of the Administrative Committee of the
High Court Judges. The objection regarding maintainability is therefore misplaced as orders
of the Registrar of the High Court cannot be equated with orders of the Chief Justice or those
of the Administrative Committee, comprising of High Court Judges. Therefore, without
determining whether a writ lies against a High Court we hold that the petitions are
maintainable as these have assailed orders passed by the Registrar of the High Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Obaidullah v. Habibullah (supra) held, that: ---
"... the Constitutional requirement, inter alia, enshrined in Article 18 of the
Constitution which enjoins that 'Subject to such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed
by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation,
and to conduct any lawful trade or bu siness, includes the right of a citizen to compete and
participate for appointment to a post in any Federal or a Provincial Government Department
or an attached department or autonomous bodies/corporations etc. on the basis of open
competition, which right he cannot exercise unless the process of appointment is transparent,
fair, just and free from any complaint as to its transparency and fairness."
The facts of the case of Riaz Hanif Rahi v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, were similar to the
facts of C.Ps . Nos.247 of 2012, 317 of 2012 and 376 of 2012. In that case the applicants were
enrolled Advocates of the High Court, but subsequently had been appointed to the post of
Research Assistants in the office of Attorney -General and Prosecutor Anti -Narcotics Fo rce. It
would be useful to reproduce the following two paragraphs from the said judgment: ---
6. Having considered the matter from all angles, in the light of the material on
record, we find that the provisions of Rule 7 of the Punjab Judicial Se rvice Rules, 1994 in no
manner create hurdle and block way of the petitioners to appear in the examination.
7. Needless to reiterate that to allow the District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney or
Assistant District Attorney or Prosecutors to be eligibl e candidates of the post of Civil Judges
and disallow them to become candidates for the post of Additional District and Sessions
Judges, is highly discriminatory. Research Assistant in the office of the Attorney General and
Prosecutor Anti Narcotics Force are not included in the person disqualified to appear in the
Examination. Especially when both of them are allowed to practice privately and retain their
license to practice. It may be pertinently mentioned here that even if the period of
service/relations hip is excluded, the petitioners are eligible to appear in the examination."
9. In respect of the applications submitted by the Assistant District Attorneys neither
Rule 5 nor Rule 7 of the 2002 Rules place any restrictions upon Assistant District Attorn eys
for applying to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges. The advertisement nor
the subsequent Notification also did not disallow such persons from applying. Rule 7 of the
2002 Rules requires that an applicant should be a law graduate from a recognized University
and should have at least five years practice as an Advocate. Accordingly, if an Assistant
District Attorney is a law graduate and has practiced as an Advocate for a period of five years
he/she would be entitled to apply for such pos t. To hold otherwise would be to contravene
Article 18 and sub -Article (1) of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The same benefit
would also be available to all other applicants who may not have been considered by the
Registrar and who have not fi led petitions, provided they meet the qualification and
experience as stipulated in Rule 7 of the 2002 Rules. The Registrar is accordingly directed to
reconsider all those applications that were rejected on the ground that the applicants were in
any servic e and to include all such names in the list/s of eligible candidates, provided they
meet the stipulated qualification and experience set out in the applicable rules.
10. As regards the objection taken in respect of special quotas the first proviso to sub -
Article (1) of Article 27 is an exception to sub -Article (1) of Article 25 ("the said first
proviso"). Originally the said first proviso provided for a period not exceeding ten years from
the commencing day, but the said period of ten years was substitute d by twenty years through
President Order 14 of 1985, and thereafter by a period of forty years (by the Constitution 15th
Amendment Act). Sub -Article (2) of Article 265 defines the 'commencing day', which is
August 14, 1973. Accordingly, the stipulated per iod of forty years in the said first proviso
would expire on August 13, 2013. The said proviso provides, that, "posts may be reserved for
persons belonging to any class or area to secure adequate representation in the service of
Pakistan." Article 34 requi res the full participation of women and Article 36 calls for due
representation in the Federal and Provincial Services of minorities. These two categories of
persons (i.e. women and minorities/non -Muslims) can be considered to be a 'class' as
envisaged in the said first proviso and the said class is a reasonable classification (see Dr.
Shahnaz Wajid v. Federation of Pakistan cited above). Therefore, special quota fixed for
women and non -Muslims is neither illegal nor unconstitutional.
11. As regards the q uestion of disabled persons, though such category/classification does
not find specific mention in the Constitution, disabled persons can be categorized as a 'class'
in terms of the said first proviso. The Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation)
Ordinance, 1981 has also been enacted by the legislature. We can also take judicial notice of
the fact that disabled persons face challenges and have to overcome many personal
difficulties. Their access to educational and other facilities is also limited an d at times
completely restricted. The access to opportunities available with able -bodied persons cannot
presently be equated with those available for disabled persons. In addition to being
handicapped on account of physical disability they may also encount er prejudice. Therefore,
preserving a quota for disabled persons would facilitate disabled persons in becoming useful
and valuable members of society. Moreover, by seeing disabled persons occupying important
posts would not only help to remove prejudice ag ainst them but would also encourage other
disabled persons. A just and human society is judged not by the facilities and opportunities
provided to its most robust members but how the weak are treated. Probably on account of
such factor the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 was
enacted, which law cannot in our opinion be deemed to contravene Article 25 of the
Constitution. The challenge to the special quota for disabled persons therefore fails and it is
declared that the same w ill be taken into consideration wherever applicable.
12. Mr. Baz Muhammad Kakar. Advocate, former President of Balochistan Bar
Association also appeared and stated that he was against all quotas, including the regional
quota as mentioned in the Policy. H e further stated that the position taken by the petitioner in
C.P. No.247 of 2012 was contradictory in so far as the said petitioner assailed the special
quotas, but did not challenge the regional quota. Mr. Baz Muhammad Kakar, Advocate
further stated that every applicant attended the same law college and received the same
education there, therefore he/she did not suffer from any handicap that needs to be
accommodated or redressed. We have already determined that the special quotas fixed for
women, disabled persons and non -Muslim is not illegal or unconstitutional. As regards the
regional quota Mr. Baz Muhammad Kakar's contention that law colleges are based in city
centres and all lawyers attend the same law colleges, therefore if the available seats are
distributed on a regional basis it may negate the principle of merit is a persuasive submission.
However, no lawyer/applicant till date has filed any petition assailing the regional quota.
Moreover, the said Policy, was probably enacted in the light of the sa id first proviso to sub -
Article (1) of Article 27, which permits reserving posts for persons of different areas until
August 13, 2013. Under the stated circumstances this question is not being determined in this
judgment. Consequently, the subject posts sh ould be filled in on the basis as mentioned in the
Notification.
13. For the reasons stated above, C.Ps. Nos.247 of 2012, 317 of 2012 and 376 of 2012 are
disposed of in the following terms: --
The petitioners in the aforesaid petitions and all other pe rsons who had submitted
applications, but whose applications were not entertained on the ground that they were
employed in any service be examined by the Registrar and, provided, the said
petitioners/applicants meet the stipulated qualification and experie nce as per the applicable
rules, their names be included in the list/s of eligible candidates and they be informed of the
same.
14. As regards C.P. No.266 of 2012 the same is allowed and the petitioners therein and
any other practicing lawyer who had sub mitted applications, but whose applications were not
entertained on the ground that they were overage be reconsidered by the Registrar keeping in
view Rule 6 (ii) of the Balochistan Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates Service Rules, 2002 and
the exclusion of the stipulated years from their respective ages. Consequently, if such
applicants are found to be eligible their names be included in the list/s of eligible candidates
and they be informed of the same.
15. Constitution Petition No.306 of 2012 is dismiss ed, as admittedly the petitioner is not a
practicing advocate, and thus not entitled to the age reduction as stipulated in Rule 6 (ii) of
the Balochistan Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates Service Rules, 2002.
MH/67/Q Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.