2015 P L C (C.S.) 1182
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, C.J. and Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
PWD EMPLOYEES' UNION, BALOCHISTAN through Vice -President and others
versus
SECRETARY, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
OF BALOCHISTAN QUETTA and others
Constitutional Petition No.370 of 2010, Contempt Application No.34 of 2010 in C.P. No.370 of
2010, C.Ps. Nos.357, 379, 402 of 2011, 117, 844, 912 of 2012, 448, 502, 662, 962 of 2013 and
89 of 2014, decided on 1 0th November, 2014.
(a) Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009---
----R. 12 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199, 2A, 3, 4, 9, 18, 25, & 27---Constitutional petition -
--Civil service ---Reservation of posts for the w idow or child of a civil servant died while in
service---Discrimination and classification ---Vires of R.12 of Balochistan Civil Servants
(Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, Arts.25 & 27 of the Constitution had
forbidden discrimination---Clas sification which was not arbitrary, capricious or in violation of
the doctrine of the equality could not be questioned---Classification had to be justified on the
basis of nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved ---Fact that classific ation
by itself was reasonable was not enough to support the same unless there was nexus between the
classification and the object to be achieved ---Object to be achieved, in the present case, was be to
get the best talent for appointment against posts in p ublic employment ---Reservation of seats for
the widow or child of civil servant died while in service, had no reasonable relation with the
object to be achieved ---Classification of persons could not be termed reasonable and such class
of persons could not be put in advantageous position vis -a-vis widow and children of ordinary
citizens ---Such classification would result in discrimination and better qualified candidates from
amongst the ordinary citizens might be ignored while less qualified from other widow s or
children of civil servants died while in service might be appointed ---Such state of position might
also result in impression that appointments in public offices were hereditary in nature which
might result in aggravation of agonies of unemployed youth---No justification had been made
out in support of such classification---Said classification would offend against the doctrine of
"equal protection of law" ---'Intelligible differentia' would distinguish persons or things from the
other persons or things w hich had been left out ---Holy Quran had enjoined that there was no
difference between the individuals of mankind and all human beings were equal in the eye of
almighty Allah ---Fittest person who was strong and trustworthy was to be employed in public
emplo yment ---State was bound to ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation and the
gradual fulfillment of the fundamental principle from each according to his ability to each
according to his work---State was responsible to establish a society which was free from
exploitation wherein social and economic justice was guaranteed to its citizens ---Right person
should be engaged in the right job which could not be done unless there was an open competition
for appointment against the posts in government depar tments ---Posts could not be filled by the
method of competition when arbitrary classification were made between different classes of
citizens and preferential rights were extended towards privileged classes at the cost of ordinary
citizens ---Rule 12 of Bal ochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules,
2009 was a classic example of such arbitrariness where widows or children of civil servants had
been put in advantageous position vis - -vis ordinary citizens ---Every individual had right to
enjoy the protection of law and to be dealt with in accordance with law ---"Law" would imply
such provisions of law which were in conformity with Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the
Constitution ---Every person and authorities were required to perform their duties and discharge
their function within the limits prescribed by law, and respect and obey the Constitution and law
in letter and spirit---Competent authority should consider the merit of all the eligible candidates
for appointment against posts in government departments ---By incorporation of R.12 of
Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009 Fundamental
Rights of the citizens had been infringed---Any law, custom or usage having the force of law
which was inconsistent to the Fundamental Rights would be void---Constitution being a basic
document was to be treated to be higher than other statutes ---Whenever a document in the shape
of law given by the Parliament or other competent authority was in conflict with the Constitution
then to such extent same was liable to be declared unconstitutional ---Every citizen should have
the right subject to such qualification, if any, prescribed by law to enter upon any lawful
profession or occupation and to conduct any lawful trade or business ---Said Fundamental Rights
would include the right of a citizen to compete and participate for appointment to a post in any
Federal or Provincial Government department or an attached department or autonomous
bodies/corporations ---Right of open competition could not be exercised unless the process of
appointment was transparent, fair, just and free from any complaint ---Non -advertising the posts
(reserved for widows or children of civil servants) was violative of Art.18 of the Constitution---
Rule 12 of Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009 was
also violative of Art.18 of the Constitution---Merit in any case had to be considered and eligible
candidates could not be ignored only because widows and children of civil servants had been put
in advantageous position vis - -vis widows and children of ordinary citizens ---Rule 12 of
Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009 was
discriminatory and ultra vires of Arts.2- A, 3, 4, 9, 18, 25 & 27 of the Constitution ---Provincial
Government should consider of doing away all such kind of discriminatory provisions and
reservation of seats in the government institutions ---Constitutional petitions were accepted in
circumstances.
PLD 1974 SC 31; AIR 1950 SC 107; PLD 1997 SC 11; (sic) PLC (C.S.) 442; PLD 2000
Lah. 509; PLD 1990 Pesh. 51; AIR 1950 SC 27, 107 and 2012 PLC (C.S.) 142 ref.
Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2009 SC 879; I.R.
Coelho (dead) by L.Rs. v, State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2007 SC 861; I.A. Sharwani v. Government
of Pakistan 1999 SCMR 1041; Muhammad Mubeen- us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD
2006 SC 602; Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 44; Dr. Mobashir Hassan
v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265; Holy Qur'an; Nusrat Baig Mirza v. Government of
Pakistan PLD 1992 FSC 412; Government of N.- W.F..P. v. Muhammad Tufail Khan PLD 2004
SC 313; 2004 PLC (C.S.) 892; Muhammad Kamran Mullahkhail v. Government of Balochistan
PLD 2012 Bal. 57; M ushtaq Ahmed Mohal v. The Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore 1997
SCMR 1043; 1996 SCMR 1349 and Mian Zia -ud-Din v. Secretary Local Government 2005 PLC
(C.S.) 908 rel.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Arts. 25 & 27 --- Discrimination and classification--- Scope ---Articles 25 & 27 of the
Constitution had forbidden discrimination and not classification---Classification which was not
arbitrary, capricious or in violation of the doctrine of the equality could not be questioned---
Classification had to be justified on the basis of nexus between the classification and the object
to be achieved ---Fact that classification by itself was reasonable was not enough to support the
same unless there was nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Arts. 199 & 184---Judicial review ---Scope ---Doctrine of judicial review had been recognized
in every state particularly those having a written constitution ---High Court in exercise of
constitutional jurisdiction enjoyed enormous power of judicial revie w---Superior courts had
constitutional duty and responsibility to find extent and limits of powers of executive as well as
legislative organ of the State ---Supreme Court and High Courts had jurisdiction to decide
legality or otherwise of the action taken b y State authorities either administrative or legislative
and such power could not be taken away from judiciary ---Judiciary had power to keep the
different organs of the State within the limits of the power conferred upon them by the
Constitution ---High Court while examining the question of constitutionality of a piece of
legislation principal or delegated was expected to explore every possibility of upholding the
same before proceeding to strike down the same ---No piece of legislation was immune from
judici al scrutiny ---High Court had power to test any piece of legislation on the touchstone of the
Constitution even if the same was not repugnant to parent statute from which the executive had
derived legislative power to make Rules or Regulations ---High Court to take into consideration
the expediency to enforce Fundamental Rights of ordinary citizens and privileged classes alike in
order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality ---High Court was bound to safeguard the
Fundamental Rights of ordinary citize ns in general and deprived classes in particular and to
ensure elimination of all sorts of discrimination or exploitations ---When there was any
transgression of power, the abuse of power or colourable exercise of power then such exercise
was open to correc tion under constitutional jurisdiction ---High Court could examine the
validity/constitutionality of any statutory provision itself when same came to its notice or had
been brought into notice by the parties ---Mere efflux of time did not ipso facto convert an
unconstitutional provision of law into a valid and constitutional one ---Mere passage of time was
not a criterion of constitutionality of any provision of law.
(d) Jurisdiction ---
----Order passed without jurisdiction could not be allowed to hold the field.
Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi, Abdul Maeed Kakar, Manzoor
Ahmed Rehmani, Bashir Ahmed Qazi, Syed Zareef Shah, Ali Hassan Bugti and Saeed Ah med
Langove for Petitioners (in C.P. No.370 of 2010).
Baz Muhammad Kakar for Respondent N o.1 (in C.P. No.357 of 2011).
Tahir Ali Baloch for Intervenor/All Pakistan Clerk Association C&W Unit (in C.P.
No.357 of 2011).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asst. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.357 of 2011).
Syed Zulfiqar Shah, Deputy Secretary C& W Department assisted by Iftikhar Ali, Section
Officer C&W Department (in C.P. No.357 of 2011).
Aslam Pervaiz, Assistant Director (J) Education Department (in C.P. No.357 of 2011).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in Contempt A pplication No.34
of 2010 in C.P. No.370 of 2010).
Syed Zulfiqar Shah, Deputy Secretary C&W Department assisted by Iftikhar Ali, Section
Officer C&W Department (in Contempt Application No.34 of 2010 in C.P. No.370 of 2010).
Abdul Majeed Khan for Petit ioner (in C.P. No.357 of 2011).
Baz Muhammad Kakar for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No.357 of 2011).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.357 of 2011).
Nemo for Petitioner (in C.P. No.379 of 2011).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A. -G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.379 of 2011).
Syed Zulfiqar Shah, Deputy Secretary C&W Department assisted by Iftikhar Ali, Section
Officer C&W Department (in C.P. No.379 of 2011).
Nemo for Petitioner (in C.P. No.402 of 2011).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.402 of 2011).
Syed Zulfiqar Shah, Deputy Secretary C&W Department assisted by Iftikhar Ali, Section
Officer C&W Department (in C.P. No.402 of 2011).
Syed Zareef Shah for Petitioner (in C.P. No./117 of 2012).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.117 of 2012).
Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani for Petitioner (in C.P. No.844 of 2012).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.844 of 2012).
Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani for Petitioner (in C.P. No.912 of 2012).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.912 of 2012).
Saeed Ahmed Langove for Petitioner (in C.P. No.448 of 2013).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.448 of 2012).
Aslam Pervaiz, Assistant Director (Judicial) Education Department (in C.P. No.448 of
2012).
Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi for Petitioner (in C.P. No.502 of 2013).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Resp ondents (in C.P. No.502 of 2013).
Bashir Ahmed Qazi for Petitioner (in C.P. No.662 of 2013).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.662 of 2013).
Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani for Petitioner (in C.P. No.962 of 2013).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.962 of 2013).
Ali Hassan Bugti for Petitioner (in C.P. No.89 of 2014).
Shai Haq Baloch, Asstt. A.- G. for Official Respondents (in C.P. No.89 of 2014).
Date of hearing: 13th October, 2014.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. --- In Constitutional Petitions Nos.370 of
2010, 357, 379 and 402 of 2011, 117, 844 and 912 of 2012, 502, 662, 962 of 2013 and (S) 89 of
2014, the claims of the petitioners are based on the strength of Rules 12 and 12 -A of the
Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, points for
determination are interconnected in each of the petition and similarly Contempt Application
No.34 of 2010 is arising out of Constitutional Petition No.370 of 2010, therefore, we intend to
dispose of them jointly by this common judgment.
2. Briefly, the root cause of the edifice, is a notification bearing No.S.O.(R -I)5(13)S&GAD -
2013/2057- 2156 dated 31st July, 2013, issued by the Government of Balochista n, Services and
General Administration Department (Regulation -I). For reference, the notification in extenso is
reproduced herein below: ---
"GOVERNMENT OF BALOCH1STAN
SERVICES AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT (REGULATION- I)
Dated Quetta, 31st Jul y, 2013.
NOTIFICATION
No.SO(R -1)5(13)S&GAD -2013/2057- 2156.--- In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 25 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 (Act No. IX of 1974), the Government of
Balochistan is pleased to make the following amendments in the Balochistan Civil Servants
(Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, namely: ---
In the aforesaid rules, ---
(a) for rule 12, the following shall be substituted, namely: ---
"Appointment of Spouce or
child of Deceased
Government Servant 12 Notwithstanding anything contained in any
rule to the contrary whenever a Civil Servant
dies while in service, his/her spouse or a child
may be employed by the appointing authority
against a post in BPS -1 to BPS -15 in the
department in which the deceased
Government servant was working, without
observing the condition of open
advertisement. Provided that --- (a) the spouse
or child as the case may be, shall possess the
qualification prescribed for the post; and (b) if
the child of the deceased Government servant
is under -age, his name shall be included in the
waiting list from the date of death of his/her
Father or Mother. However, he/she shall be
considered for appointment after he/she attains
the age prescribed far the post; and
(b) after rule 12, as so amended hereinabove, the fallowing new rule shall be inserted,
namely: ----
"Appointment of a child of
retired/ invalidated
Government Servant. 12-A Notwithstanding anything contained in any
rule to the contrary, w henever a Government
Servant in BPS -1 and BPS -2 retired on
superannuation or due to invalidation, one of
his/her children may be employed by the
appointing authority against a post in BPS -1
and BPS -2 in the Department in which the
retired Government servan t was working,
without observing the condition of open
advertisement; Provided that --- (a) the child
possess the qualification prescribed for the
post; and (b) If the child of the retired
Government servant is under -age at the time
of retirement, his name shall be included in
the waiting list from the date of
retirement/invalidation of his/her Father or
Mother. However, he/she shall be considered
for appointment after he/she attains the age
prescribed for the past. BY ORDER OF
GOVERNOR BALOCHISTAN CHIEF
SECRETARY BALOCHISTAN"
3. It may be noted that the operation of the afore -quoted notification was suspended by this
Court vide order dated 2lst August, 2013, which reads as under: ---
"Learned A.A. -G. places on record Notification No.S.O.(R -I)5 (13)/S&GAD -2013/2057-
2156 dated 31st July, 2013 and states that most of the grievances of the petitioner have been
redressed by the said notification. Prima facie, the notification seeks to create a privileged class
comprising of the children of the Government servants as it envisages appointments by passing
the provision of open advertisement and merit, and may be construed as depriving the citizens
from aspiring to Government service. As we have reservations about the legality and
constitutionality on the said notification, notices are issued to the learned Advocate -General
Balochistan, Chief Secretary and Secretary S&GAD
In view of the fact that notices in respect of notification have been issued and it is yet to
be determined whether the notification is in compliance with the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, it would not be appropriate to make appointments pursuant thereto, as it
will create third party rights as well as depriving others to aspire to Government service.
Consequently, we di rect the Government of Balochistan not to make any appointment pursuant
to the said notification."
4. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be advantageous to trace out the
legislative history of reservation of posts for the widow or child of civil servants died, while in
service. It may be observed that provincial legislature i.e. Provincial Assembly of Balochistan
promulgated an Act, namely, the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as
("the Act of 1974"). The Act of 1974 was promulgated in pursuance of command of Article 240
of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"). The Government
of Balochistan, in exercise of powers conferred upon it by section 25 of the Act of 1974, made
Baloch istan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009 ("A.P.T. Rules,
2009"). In the instant petitions, this Court seized of the matter involving vires of aforesaid Rules
12 and 12- A of the A.P.T. Rules, 2009.
5. It may be noted that bef ore coining into force the A.P.T. Rules, 2009, the Balochistan
Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1979 ("the Rules of 1979") held
the field. The Rules of 1979 initially did not provide for any preferential right of appointment of
widow or child of the civil servants died, while in service. Later on, a new Rule 13- A was added
in the Rules of 1979. The Rules of 1979 stood repealed after coming into force the A.P.T. Rules,
2009 by operation of Rule 23 thereof. Rule 12 of the A.P.T. Rul es, 2009 is somehow identical to
Rule 13- A of the Rules of 1979.
6. Messrs Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi, Abdul Majeed Kakar,
Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani, Bashir Ahmed Qazi, Syed Zareef Shah, Ali Hassan Bugti and Saeed
Ahmed Lango, Advocates, repres enting the petitioners, while supporting the incorporation of
Rule 12 in the A.P.T. Rules, 2009, contended that neither the Rule in question suffers from any
legal infirmity, nor is the same unreasonable. They, inter alia, contended that the Government of
Balochistan has been empowered to make Rules under section 25 of the Act of 1974 and that in
exercise of the said statutory powers, the A.P.T. Rules, 2009 have been competently made,
therefore, the said Rules are not open to judicial scrutiny; the Courts have always learned more
readily in favour of the presumption of constitutionality of the Rules, if made competently in
exercise of powers conferred by a Statute until that presumption is rebutted; that Rule 12 of the
A.P.T. Rules, 2009, being pari materia with Rule 13- A of the Rules of 1979, remained
unchallenged and stood on Statute Book for a considerable long period and innumerable cases
were decided thereunder and every effort should be made to save delegated or subordinate
legislation instead of destro ying it; that the Rules, being in the nature of delegated legislation,
cannot be called into question on the grounds of unreasonableness or mala fide; that no one has
challenged the vires of Rule 12 of the A.P.T. Rules, 2009, or prayed to examine the
const itutionality of said Rules, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to examine the worth,
verity and correctness or otherwise of the said statutory provision; that the guarantee of equal
protection of laws forbids class legislation, but does not forbid r easonable classification for the
purpose of legislation, principal or delegated in nature. Rule 12 of the A.P.T. Rules, 2009 is not
arbitrary, artificial, capricious or in violation of the 'Doctrine of Equality'. Said Rule is not
discriminatory and civil s ervants, who are in service or who attained the age of superannuation,
are a class distinct from civil servants, who die in service. Classification so made is based on
intelligible differentia and does not offend spirit of Article 25 or 27 of the Constitut ion and,
while concluding their arguments, they further submitted that Rule 12 of the A.P.T. Rules, 2009,
being beneficial legislation, is required to be construed liberally and beneficially, therefore, this
Court should not adopt a doctrinaire approach, w hich might choke the said beneficial legislation.
In support of their contentions, they relied upon the cases reported in "PLD 1974 SC 31, AIR
1950 SC 107, PLD 1997 SC 11, (sic) PLC (C.S.) 442 Lahore, PLD 2000 Lahore 509, PLD 1990
Peshawar 51, AIR 1950 SC 27, 107 and 2012 PLC (C.S.) 142 Balochistan".
7. On the contrary, Mr. Nazim -ud-Din, learned Advocate -General, appearing on behalf of
the Provincial Government, while making reference to the footnotes made by the then Chief
Secretary and Secretary Law at the time of incorporating Rule 12, contended that Rule 12 of the
A.P.T. Rules, 2009 offends against the principle of equal protection of law, embodied in Article
25 read with Article 27 of the Constitution. He further submitted that Rule 12 of the A.P.T.
Rules, 2009 is unreasonable and uncertain insofar as the legislative history makes it abundantly
clear that the widow or child of the civil servants died, while in service, have been given
preferential right to be appointed against a post BPS -1 to 10 or the y were put in advantageous
position vis -a-vis the ordinary citizens, while competing for appointment against a post in a
Provincial Government department. He contended that Rule 12 is ultra vires to the Constitution
as well as parent statute i.e. the Act o f 1974, whereby the legislative power was delegated to the
Government of Balochistan to make the Rules. He prayed for a declaration that Rule 12 of the
A.P.T. Rules, 2009 is unconstitutional and to strike it down in the interest of justice, good
governance , supremacy of law and merits.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at considerable length
and examined their respective contentions thoroughly, while taking into consideration the law
and the judgments cited at the bar on the subject. The moot questions of law, which cropped up
for consideration can broadly be summarised as under: ---
(a) Whether Rule 12 of the A.P.T. Rules, 2009 offends against the principle of "Equal
Protection of Law" embodied in Articles 25 and 27 of t he Constitution and is ultra vires to the
Constitution?
(b) Whether aforesaid Rule is in conflict with parent statute i.e. the Act of 1974?
(e) Whether aforesaid Rule is unreasonable or uncertain?
(d) Whether this Court is vested with jurisdiction to strike down the said Rule on all or any
of the aforesaid scores?
9. At the very outset, it is worth mentioning that a Court, prior to taking cognizance of a
matter, is supposed to determine the question of its jurisdiction and any order passed without
jurisdiction cannot be allowed to hold the field for a moment. In this behalf, it may be noted that
this Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction conferred upon it under Article 199 or the
Constitution, enjoys enormous power of judicial review. Hon 'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan had
an opportunity to examine the scope of judicial review in the case of "Sindh High Court Bar
Association v. Federation of Pakistan" (PLD 2009 SC 879). The ratio decidendi of the said
judgment lays down following proposition: ---
"The judiciary way the interpreter of the Constitution and was assigned the delicate tack
of determining the extent of the power conferred on each branch of the government, its limits
and whether any action of that branch transgressed such limits.
It way the solemn duty of the court to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution zealously and vigilantly.
The judicial review was a basic feature of the Constitution and that the power of judicial
review was a constituent power which could not be abrogated by judicial process of
interpretation. It was a cardinal principle of the Constitution that no one could claim to be the
sole judge of the power given under the Constitution and that its actions were within the confines
of the powers given by the Constitution.
The Judges, to keep the power of judicial review strictly judicial, in its exercise, do take
care not to intrude upon the domain of the other branches of the Government. It is the duty of the
judiciary to determine the legality of executive action and the validity of legislation passed by
the Legislative.
It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that courts must always endeavour to
exercise their jurisdiction so that the rights of the people are guarded against arbitrary violations
by the executive. This expansion of jurisdiction is for securing and safeguarding the rights of the
people against the violations of the law by the executive and not for personal aggrandizement of
the courts and Judges."
10. Similarl y, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the Doctrine of Judicial
Review in the case of "I.R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Tamil Nadu", (AIR 2007 SC 861)
observed as under: ---
"It is cardinal principle of the Constitution that no one can claim to be the sole judge of
the power given under the Constitution and that its actions were within the confines of the
powers given by the Constitution."
11. On the above survey of the case -laws, it is clear that the Doctrine of Judicial Review is
recognised in almost every state particularly those having a written constitution. The superior
Courts have constitutional duty and responsibility in find extent and limits of powers of
executive as well as legislative organs of the State, unless expressl y excluded by a provision of
the Constitution, availability of the power of such a judicial review is implicit in a written
constitution. We are of the view that if there is one feature of our Constitution which, more than
any other, is basic and fundament al to the maintenance of rule of law, it is the power of judicial
review and it is unquestionably, to our mind, part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Supreme Court and High Courts have jurisdiction to decide legality or otherwise of the action
taken by state authorities, be that administrative or legislative, and that power cannot be taken
away from judiciary. It is the solemn duty of the judiciary under the Constitution to keep the
different organs of the state such as the executive and the legi slature within the limits of the
power conferred upon them by the Constitution. This power of judicial review is conferred on
the judiciary by Articles 199 and 184(3) of the Constitution.
12. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is always a presumption in
favour of constitutionality of any piece of legislation and this Court is expected to explore every
possibility to uphold the same before striking it down. There is no cavil with the proposition that
this Court while examining th e question of constitutionality of a piece of legislation principal or
delegated, is expected to explore every possibility of upholding it before proceeding to strike it
down, but the question arises whether any piece of legislation is immune from judicial scrutiny?
The answer is obviously "No". In the well celebrated case of "I.A. Sharwani v. Government of
Pakistan". (1999 SCMR 1041), while approving the presumption of constitutionality in favour of
legislation, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: ---
"27. (a) .
(b) . It is extremely hazardous to decide the question of the constitutional validity of a
provision on the basis of the supposed existence of facts by raising a presumption. Presumptions
are resorted to when the matter does not admit of di rect proof or when there is some practical
difficulty to produce evidence to prove a particular fact.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) While good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the, part of the Legislature
are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances
brought to the notice of the Court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as
based, the presumption of the constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding
that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or
corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation."
13. As discussed above, this Court has enormous power under Article 199 of the Constitution
to test any p iece of legislation on the touchstone of the Constitution and in the case of delegated
legislation to satisfy itself that it is not repugnant to parent statute from which the executive
derives legislative power to make Rules or Regulations. We are of the f irm view that in order to
sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the Court must take into consideration the
expediency to enforce Fundamental Rights of ordinary citizens and privileged classes alike. It is
the constitutional duty of this Court to sa feguard the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens in
general and deprived classes in particular and to ensure elimination of all sorts of discriminations
or exploitations. It is almost a gospel now that wherever there is any transgression of power; the
absence of power, or colourable exercise of power, the exercise is open to correction in the
constitutional jurisdiction of the superior judiciary.
14. It has also been contended that no one has challenged the virus of Rule 12 of the A.P.T.
Rules, 2009 or prayed to examine the constitutionality of the said rule. By advancing such
contention, it has been argued that this Court cannot strike down any provision of law in
collateral proceedings. Such arguments have not impressed us and we hold that it is not
necessary for the Court to wait for an occasion that someone must challenge the vires of the said
rule. This Court can examine the validity/constitutionality of any statutory provision itself when
it comes to its notice or it has been brought into notice by the parties. Similarly, the Court cannot
be estopped to examine the constitutionality of a provision of law, at a belated stage, because
mere efflux of time does not ipso facto convert an unconstitutional provision of law into a valid
and constitutional one. Mere passage of time is not a criterion for the validation of
constitutionality of any provision of law. We are fortified in our view by a celebrated judgment
rendered by a larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, comprising of 11 Hon'ble Judges in the
case of "Muhammad Mubeen -us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan", (PLD 2006 SC 602), wherein
the Court seized with a matter involving vires of section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
Said provision of law was declared ultra vices to the Constitution notwi thstanding the fact that
the same held the field for almost 9 years. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that: ---
"63. Thus, it is concluded that this Court cannot be refrained from examining the
constitutionality of a law because of lapse of time. ther efore, notwithstanding any objection, if
the constitutionality of a law is under challenge, its vires can be examined despite the fact that it
had remained on the statute book for a considerable time."
15. Now reverting to the main controversy arising in these petitions as to whether
classification made between the widow or child of the civil servants died while in service and
children of ordinary citizens is reasonable and rational, to resolve the controversy and answer the
proposition, it would be advantageous to reproduce Article 27 of the Constitution, which reads as
under: ---
"27. Safeguard against discrimination in services. --- (1) No citizen otherwise qualified for
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:
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:
Provided further that in the interest of the said service, specified posts or services may be
reserved for members of either sex if such posts or services entail the performance of duties and
functions which cannot be adequately performed by members of the other sex:
Provided also that under -representation of any class or area in the service of Pakistan may
be redressed in such manner as may be determined by an Act of Majlis -e-Shoora (Parli ament).
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent any Provincial Government, or any local or other
authority in a Province, from prescribing, in relation to any post or class of service under that
Government or authority, conditions as to residence in the Province, for a period not exceeding
three years, prior to appointment under that Government or authority."
16. Front perusal of first proviso appended with aforesaid Article 27 of the Constitution, we
have observed that original Constitution (enforced on 14th August 1973) maximum 10 years'
period was provided for reservation of certain posts for persons belonging to any class or area to
secure their adequate representation in the service of Pakistan. Word "ten" occurring in the said
proviso was substitut ed with the word "twenty" by Revival of the Constitution of 1973 Order,
1985 (President's Order No.14 of 1985), Art.2 Schedule Item 4 (w.e.f. 2nd March, 1985). Period
of 20 years expired on 13th August, 1993, but Parliament did not bring any amendment to e xtend
the said period. In the absence of any such amendment, all posts in the service of Pakistan were
to be filled on merits, but quota system continued to prevail and numerous appointments were
made on the basis of regional quota. However, such material defect was later on cured by the
Parliament by promulgating the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act (VII of 1999). As
provided in section 2 of the said Act, for the word "twenty" occurring in the aforesaid proviso
was substituted with the word "forty" a nd deemed always to have been so substituted. Now
position is, unfortunately, the same and period of 40 years has again expired on 13th August,
2013, but neither has any amendment been brought in the said Article of the Constitution, nor
has the quota syst em been done away with. However, this Court, at this stage, would not like to
express its opinion on this material defect and leave the same to be examined in some other
appropriate case, if no amendment is brought by the Parliament.
17. Now coming back to the main controversy, we are not hesitant to subscribe to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Article 27 read with Article 25
of the Constitution forbids discrimination and not the classification. There is no cavil with the
said proposition that classification, which is not arbitrary, capricious or in violation of the
doctrine of the quality, cannot be questioned. But the classification has to be justified on the
basis of nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. The fact, however, that
the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it, unless there is nexus between
the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be achieved in the
case of the kind wi th which we are concerned is to get the best talent for appointments against
posts in public employment, the reservation of seats for the widow or child of civil servants died
while in service has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. Clas sification of
persons, finding no mention in the first proviso appended with Article 27 of the Constitution,
cannot be termed reasonable and such class of persons cannot be put in advantageous position
vis-a-vis widows and children of ordinary citizens. Such classification would result in
discrimination, inasmuch as, better qualified candidates from amongst the ordinary citizens may
be ignored while less qualified from other widows or children of civil servants died while in
service may be appointed. This s tate of position may also result in impression that appointments
in public offices are hereditary in nature which may result in aggravation of agonies of
unemployed youth. The said fact, as pointed out by the learned Advocate -General during the
course of argument, is also evident from the footnotes made by the then Chief Secretary,
Government of Balochistan at the time of inserting Rule 12, which reads as under: ---
"Why are we drifting away from the well acknowledged principle of merit? Government
jobs are not hereditary. No law could be changed. If I had a way I will withdraw the letter at F/A
because this might have been misused/abused to fill up the jobs with incompetent and dishonest
people. If anything, a clarification should issue that the circular at F/A does not exempt a person
from the application of rules for the particular post including possession of prescribed
qualification and experience."
18. It is also pertinent to mention here that the incorporation of Rule 12 of A.P.T. Rules,
2009 was also opposed by the then Secretary law, Government of Balochistan, in the following
terms:---
"The amendment proposed to be made in Rule 12(b) of the Balochistan Civil Servants
(Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009 does not seem to be in line with the
constitutional guarantees as enshrined in Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution Islamic Republic
of Pakistan, 1973 but rather it offends the saw, in as much as it provides a different treatment in
terms of employment to the children of retired Government servant while prevents the other
citizens from availing the said benefit. As such it is prima facie discriminatory and needs to be
deleted."
19. In a recent case of "Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan", (PLD 2011 SC 44),
Hon'ble Supreme Court, after extensive deliberations on the question of discrimination and
reasonable classification laid down following principles: ---
"It would not be enough to say that a piece of legislation or a policy formulated
thereunder is discriminatory but it is to be substantiated by applying certain well entrenched
principles on the subject of discriminatory legislation which are as follows:---
(i) The expression 'equality before law' or the 'equal protection law' does not mean that it
secures to all perso ns the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. It only requires that all
persons similarly situated or circumstanced shall be treated alike.
(ii) The guarantee of equal protection of law does not mean that all laws must be general in
character an d universal in application and the State has no power to distinguish and classify
persons or things for the propose of legislation.
(iii) The guarantee of equal protection of laws forbids class legislation but does not forbid
reasonable classification fo r the purpose of legislation. The guarantee does not prohibit
discrimination with respect to things that are different. The State has the power to classify
persons or things and to make laws applicable only to the persons or things within the class.
(iv) The classification, if it is not to offend against the Constitutional guarantee must be based
upon some intelligible differential bearing a reasonable and just relation to the object sought to
be achieved by the legislation.
(v) Reasonableness of classi fication is a matter for the Courts to determine and when
determining this question, the Courts may take into consideration matters of common knowledge
matters of common report, the history of the times and to sustain the classification, they must
assume t he existence of any state of facts which can reasonably be conceived to exist at the time
of the legislation.
(vi) The classification will not be held to be invalid merely because the law might have been
extended to other persons who in some respect might resemble the class for which the law is
made because the legislature is the best judge of the needs of particular classes and the degree of
harm so as to adjust its legislation according to the exigencies found to exist.
(vii) One who assails the class ification must show that it does not rest on any reasonable basis.
(viii) Where the legislature lays down the law and indicates the persons or things to whom its
provisions are intended to apply and leaves the application of law to an administrative authority
while indicating the policy and purpose of law and laying down the standards or norms for the
guidance of the designated authority exercise of its powers, no question of violation of Article 25
arises. In case, however, the designated authority abuse s its powers or transgresses the limits
when exercising the power, the actual order of the authority and not the State would be
condemned as unconstitutional. (Emphasis provided)
(ix) Where the State itself does not make any classification of persons or things and leaves it
in the discretion of the Government to select and classify persons or things, without laying down
any principle or policy to guide the Government in the exercise of discretion, the statute will be
struck down on the ground of making ex cessive delegation of power to the Government so as to
enable it to discriminate between the persons or the things similarly situated."
20. Likewise, we also find support from the case of "Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of
Pakistan", (PLD 2010 SC 265) , relevant part of the said judgment reads as under: ---
"Any classification which is arbitrary and which is made without any basis is no
classification and a proper classification must always rest upon some difference and must bear a
reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which it is proposed."
21. In such view of the matter, no justification worth the name in support of the classification
has been made out, therefore, we feel no hesitation in holding that such classification offends
against the doctrine of equal protection of law guaranteed by the Constitution in Articles 25 and
27 of the Constitution.
22. As far as 'intelligible differentia' is concerned, it distinguishes persons or things from the
other persons or things, who have been left out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the
above referred case law (PLD 2010 SC 265) explained the definition of "intelligible differentia"
in the following words: ---
"59. Thus, keeping in view the above principles and the definition of classification
"intelligible differentia" means, in the case of the law differentiating between two sets of the
people or objects, all such differentiations should be easily understood as logical and lucid and it
should not be artificial or contrived."
23. It may be noted that it is the duty of superior judiciary to enforce fundamental rights of
citizens. While examining the question as to whether Rule 12 of the A.P.T. Rules, 2009 has
resulted in infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed b y the Constitution or
offends against any other provision of the Constitution. We have already discussed the scope of
principle of "equality before law" embodied in Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution. We may
also make reference to the concept of equali ty amongst the mankind introduced by Islam. The
Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) preached and practised equality throughout the life. The
sermon delivered on the occasion of last Hajj performed by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon
him) is the first landmark in the history of mankind. It was made clear for all times to come that
there is no difference amongst individuals on the basis of race, colour and territory. The relevant
portion reads as under: --
"O' People! Listen to my words, for I do not know whether we shall ever meet again and
perform Hajj after this year, O' Ye people! Allah says, O' people we created you from one male
and one female and made you into tribes and notions, so as to be known to one another. Verily in
the sight of Allah, the most honoured amongst you is the one who is most God- fearing. There is
no superiority for an Arab over a non- Arab and for a non- Arab over an Arab, nor for the white
over the black nor for the black over the white except in God- consciousness."
24. It is manifest that the Holy Qur'an also, inter alia, enjoins that there is no difference
between the individuals of mankind and that all human beings are equal in the eyes of Almighty
Allah. The fittest person, who is strong and trustworthy, is to be employed in public
employment. It is evident that the concept of preferential right for appointments in public
employment like the provision of law under challenge runs counter not only to Article 2- A of the
Constitution, but also to the commandment of Almighty Allah as orda ined in the Holy Qur'an. In
this respect, reference can be made to the case of "Nusrat Baig Mirza v. Government of
Pakistan" (PLD 1992 Federal Shariat Court 412), wherein the then Hon'ble Chief Justice,
speaking on behalf of the Court, observed as under: ---
"The Holy Qur'an and Sunnah should form the basis of all our directions for all our
spiritual as well as worthy endeavours as they provide us a guidance not only towards the good
in the Hereafter but also to attain a good life in this world. Quota sys tem in disregard of merit
makes the place of domicile as the criteria and this has, unfortunately, been so woven and
institutionalised in our socio -political fabric that unless we return to the original message of the
Holy Qur'an we will be farther away fr om the righteous and straight path ( )."
25. It may be added that under Article 3 of the Constitution, it is the obligation of the State to
ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation and the gradual fulfilment of the fundamental
principle, from each according to his ability to each according to his work. It is the responsibility
of the State to establish a society, which is free from exploitation, wherein social and economic
justice is guaranteed to its citizens. To ensure fulfilment of said obligation, it is necessary that
right person must to be engaged in the right job, which cannot be done, unless there is an open
competition for appointments against the posts in government departments. Posts cannot be filled
by the method of competition, when arbitrary classifications are made between different classes
of citizens and preferential rights are extended towards privileged classes at the cost of ordinary
citizens. Rule 12 of the A.P.T. Rules, 2009 is a classic example of such arbitrariness, where
widows or children of civil servants have been put in advantageous position vis -a-vis ordinary
citizens.
26. It is also aimed an alienable right of every individual to enjoy the protection of law and to
be dealt with in accordance with law, as enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution. Word "Law"
employed in the said Article does not connote arbitrary and capricious provisions of law. It
implies those provisions of law, which are in conformity with fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution. As pe r command of Article 4 of the Constitution, all the citizens, without any
discrimination, shall be dealt with in accordance with law, so enforcement of the law leaves no
room for creating any distinction between the citizens, except a particular class, on the basis of
intelligible differentia. Reference can be made to the case reported in PLD 2010 SC 265, referred
to above.
27. Similarly, under Article 5 of the Constitution, every person and authorities are required to
perform their duties and discharge t heir function within the limits prescribed by law, respect and
obey the Constitution and law in letter and spirit. Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution make it
clear that deviation from law has not to be countenanced. It is the duty and obligation of the
competent authority to consider the merit of all the eligible candidates for appointments against
posts in government departments, while putting them in juxtaposition to find out the meritorious
amongst them otherwise one of the organs of the State i.e. Exe cutive could not survive as an
independent organ, which is the command of the Constitution. By incorporation of Rule l2 in the
A.P.T. Rules, 2009, more than one fundamental rights of the citizens have been infringed, thus,
State functionaries have failed t o discharge their obligations of obedience to the Constitution.
Reference in this regard may also be made to a case of "Government of N. -W.F.P. v. Muhammad
Tufail Khan", reported in PLD 2004 SC 313 and 2004 PLC (C.S.) 892 (SC), wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Cour t observed that: ---
"Such -like entries in the civil service cannot be countenanced as it generate frustration
and despondency among all persons who were having excellent merit but every time they are
bypassed through such- like back door entries on political interference. Everybody who matters in
the functioning of the society has always propagated for the adoption of transparency and merit
in appointments, which are cardinal principles of good governance. The Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan has also mandated the same as is reflected from the Article 18 which is in
the following terms:---
"18. 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 business."
6. However, when it comes to actual practice, t hese principles are blatantly ignored. The
Courts are duty bound to uphold the Constitutional mandate and to keep up the salutary principle
of rule of law. In order to uphold these principles it has been stated time and again by the
superior Courts that al l the appointments are to be made after due publicity in a transparent
manner after inviting applications, through Press from all those who are eligible, deserving and
desirous. Reference in this regard is made to Abdul Jabbar Memon (1996 SCMR 1349) where
the learned Judges in a Human Rights case, directed the Federal Government, Provincial
Governments, Statutory Bodies and the Public Authorities to avoid violation of fundamental
rights (Article 18 of the Constitution) guaranteeing to every citizen's freedo m of profession. This
view was reiterated by a Bench of five learned Judges in a case reported in Munawar Khan v.
Niaz Muhammad (1993 SCMR 1287) where it was observed as under: ---
"6. What we have noticed in all these cases which are under consideration before us is that
appointments of both the parties contesting the appointments were made without such
advertisements, publicity or information in the locality from which the recruitments were to be
made. In view of the Constitutional requirement and the interim order already passed in Human
Right Case 104 of 1992 it is expected that in future all appointments shall be made after due
publicity in the area from which the recruitment had to take place. This will, however, not apply
to short -term leave vacancies or to contingent employment."
Again in another case, reported in Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal v. Honourable Lahore High
Court (1997 SCMR 1043), a Bench of five learned Judges reiterated this view after quoting in
extenso the order passed in the aforementioned case titled as Abdul Jabbar Memon's case (1996
SCMR 1349) stated as under: ---
"17. We reiterate that the appointments to various posts by the Federal Government,
Provincial Governments, Statutory Bodies and other Public Authorities, either initial or ad hoc or
regular; without inviting applications from the public through the Press, is violative of Article 18
read with Article 2A of the Constitution, which has incorporated the Preamble to the
Constitution as part of the same and which inter alia enjoins e quality of opportunity and
guarantees for certain of an egalitarian society through a new order, which objective cannot be
achieved unless every citizen equally placed or situated is treated alike and is provided equal
opportunity to compete inter alia for the posts in aforesaid government set -ups/institutions."
Reference in this regard is also made to the case of Obaidullah v. Habibullah (PLD 1997
SC 835) where the learned Judges again reiterated the afore- quoted paragraph. Reference is also
made to the case of Abdur Rashid v. Riazuddin (1995 SCMR 999).
7. However, in spite of all these directions, this salutary principle is being frustrated with
impunity. This malady which has plagued the whole society shall be arrested with iron hands and
the principle of merits shall be safeguarded, otherwise, it would be too late to be corrected."
28. It may be relevant to point out here that as provided in Article 8 of the Constitution, any
law, or any custom or usage having the force of law, in so far as it is i nconsistent with the rights
conferred by this Chapter, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. Said Article also
places the State under obligation not to make any law, which takes away or abridges the rights so
conferred and any law made in co ntravention of this clause shall, to the extent of such
contravention, be void. We are of the considered view that Constitution, being a basic document,
is always treated to be higher than other Statutes and whenever a document in the shape of law
given by the Parliament or other competent authority is in conflict with the Constitution or is
inconsistent, then to that extent the same is liable to be declared unconstitutional. In this regard
reference can be made to the case of "Muhammad Kamran Mullahkhail v . Government of
Balochistan", (PLD 2012 Balochistan 57), wherein this Court was of the view that: ---
"If a person files a petition alleging that a law contravenes any Fundamental Right
conferred by the Constitution this court is obliged to examine the s ame in its constitutional
jurisdiction. To contend otherwise would render Article 8 bereft of meaning and leave citizens
denuded of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution."
29. Likewise, Article 18 of the Constitution enjoins that "subje ct 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 business" said Fundamental Right
includes the right of a citizen to compete and participate for appointment to a post in any Federal
or 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. Reference can be made to the case of "Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal v. The
Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore", (1997 SCMR 1043). It may be observed that the posts
reserved for widows or children of civil servants are not required to be advertised, which is also
violative of Article 18 of the Constitution as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Human Rights
Cases Nos.104(i), 104(ii), 104(iii) and 104(iv) of 1992 (1996 SCMR 1349). On the basis of what
has been said above, we hold that Rule 12 of the A.P.T. Rules, 2009 is also violative of Article
18 of the Constitution in so far as it obstructs the way of ordinary qualified citizens to compete
for entering into any profession in accordance with their ability and eligibility.
30. Now diverting to the submission made by the learned Advocate -General that Rule 12 of
the A.P.T. Rules, 2009 is also in conflict with its parent statute i.e. the Act of 1974 from where
government der ived legislative power to make rules. We have already examined Rule 12 on the
touchstone of various articles of the Constitution and arrived at the conclusion that said Rule
offends against fundamental rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, therefore, we feel no need at
this stage to dilate upon its repugnancy to the Act of 1974.
31. Before parting with the judgment, we are also of the view that good governance is the
demand of the present day; and if transparency is overlooked, the candidates and the ge neral
public, would have a sense of deprivation which would lead to frustration, dejection, humiliation
and depression. Such bad governance can also create a chaos in the society. Merit, in any case,
has to be considered and eligible candidates cannot be i gnored only because widows and children
of civil servants have been put in advantageous position vis -a-vis widows and children of
ordinary citizens. Reference can be made the case of "Mian Zia- ud-Din v. Secretary Local
Government", (2005 PLC (C.S.) 908) La hore, wherein it was observed: ---
"It may be noted that public employment is no more bounty of the State or its
functionaries. Rules of law is a cherished goal of any civilized society and it will remain an
illusion if abuse of administrative authority continues unabated."
32. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove, we have no hesitation in our mind
after having examined Rule 12 o f the A.P.T. Rules, 2009 to hold that the same is discriminatory
and ultra vires of Articles 2A, 3, 4, 9, 18, 25 and 27 of the Constitution. The Provincial
Government should consider of doing away all such kind of discriminatory provisions and
reservation of seats in the government institutions.
The Constitutional Petitions Nos.370 of 2010, 357 of 2011, 117, 844 and 912 of 2012,
448, 502, 662 and 962 of 2013 and (S) 89 of 2014, being without merits, are dismissed with no
order as to costs. Since none app eared in Constitutional Petitions Nos.379 and 402 of 2011,
therefore, the same are dismissed in default and for non -prosecution. Similarly, Contempt
Application No.34 of 2010, being not pressed, is hereby dismissed.
AG/84/Bal. Order accordingl yThis 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.