PESHAWAR: Two lawyers on Saturday petitioned the Peshawar High Court against a rule that exempts officers of the armed forces from sitting a competitive examination for civil service appointments.

The petition was jointly filed by advocates Ali Azim Afridi and Wiqar Ahmad Maidan with multiple prayers to the high court.

They requested that the court declare Rule 3 of the Civil Service of Pakistan (Composition and Cadre) Rules, 1954, in conflict with the Constitution for granting that test exemption to officers of the armed forces.

The petitioners said that if that prayer couldn’t be accepted, then legal practitioners should be “treated” like the officers of the armed forces for those civil service appointments.

Lawyers request court to declare Rule 3 of CSP rules in conflict with Constitution

The petitioners said Rule 3 declared: “Appointments to the Service [Pakistan Administrative Service] shall be made by the President on the basis of the results of an open competitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission, except in the case of officers of the Armed Forces, who may be appointed to the Service on the recommendation of the FPSC [Federal Public Service Commission], arrived at through an interview and a scrutiny of service records.”

They contended that the Civil Service of Pakistan (Composition and Cadre) Rules, 1954, guarded appointments to the civil service on the basis of the results of an open competitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission.

The petitioners, however, said that Rule 3, giving exception status to the officers of the armed forces, had taken over their “fundamentally guaranteed rights.”

“This classification is self-styled and is aimed at facilitating a few officers of the armed forces, carrying a diametrically opposite background and way of training. A way-out has been carved for them by keeping the constitutionally guaranteed contours meaningless,” read the petition.

The petitioners said that though that bifurcation or exception was not warranted, it was kept intact through those rules.

They questioned why the advocates had not been included in the service exception meant for the officers of the armed forces.

The petitioners contended that the act of ignoring advocates for that category was unconstitutional.

They said that it was the duty of the constitutional courts to ensure that the instruments impinging upon rights and dissimilar to the Constitution and the law were looked upon and attended to.

The respondents in the petition are the federation of Pakistan through the federal law secretary, secretary of the Establishment Division, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government through its law secretary, the Federal Public Service Commission through its chairman, and principal secretaries to the president of Pakistan and KP governor.

Published in Dawn, May 26th, 2024

Opinion

Editorial

‘Cruel jest’
Updated 02 Jul, 2024

‘Cruel jest’

Actual economic course correction has once again been put off for another time.
Limited choices
02 Jul, 2024

Limited choices

NONE of the limited choices before the international community where dealing with the Afghan Taliban regime are very...
India’s victory
02 Jul, 2024

India’s victory

IN the end, the best team won — the team that held its nerve best when the stakes were the highest. Batting...
Resolution 901
Updated 01 Jul, 2024

Resolution 901

Our lawmakers’ failure to stand united in the face of foreign criticism may not have been unexpected but it was still disturbing to witness.
Nebulous definition
01 Jul, 2024

Nebulous definition

IS it a ‘vision’, a loose programme, or an actual kinetic ‘operation’? A week on, we don’t precisely know....
Stealing heritage
01 Jul, 2024

Stealing heritage

CONTRADICTIONS define Pakistan. While the country’s repository of antiquities can change its fortunes, recurrent...