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

Confused state
Updated 05 Jan, 2025

Confused state

WHEN it comes to combatting violent terrorism, the state’s efforts seem to be suffering from a lack of focus. The...
Born into hunger
05 Jan, 2025

Born into hunger

OVER 18.2 million children — 35 every minute — were born into hunger in 2024, with Pakistan accounting for 1.4m...
Tourism triumph
05 Jan, 2025

Tourism triumph

THE inclusion of Gilgit-Baltistan in CNN’s list of top 25 destinations to visit in 2025 is a proud moment for...
Falling temperatures
Updated 04 Jan, 2025

Falling temperatures

Vitally important for stakeholders to acknowledge, understand politicians can still challenge opposing parties’ narratives without also being in a constant state of war with each other.
Agriculture census
04 Jan, 2025

Agriculture census

ACCURATE information relating to agricultural activities is vital for data-driven future planning, policymaking, as...
Biometrics for kids
04 Jan, 2025

Biometrics for kids

ALTHOUGH the move has caused a panic among weary parents mortified at the thought of carting their children to Nadra...