Muhammad Naeem & 21 Others Vs PPSC etc

Stereo. H C J D A 38 Judgment Sheet

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.9086 of 2026 Muhammad Naeem & 21 others Vs.

Punjab Public Service Commission through its Secretary and 03 others

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing 06.07.2026 Petitioners by M/s Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, Saida Kanwal, Uzma Razzaq Khan, Nawaz Manit, Khaqan Babar, Ch. Muhammad Imran Khan and Abdul Jabbar, Advocates for the petitioners.

M/s Junaid Jabbar Khan, Mutahar Hussain, Muhammad Rizwan, Rai Riaz Ahmad Kharal and Shahzad Hameed, Advocates for petitioner in W.P. No.11484 of 2026.

M/s Adam Raza Thaheem, Habib Muhammad Khan and Noreen Sarfraz Khan, Advocates for the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in W.P. No.11484 of M/s Zaman Ali Dogar, Rana Shahid Raza, Ali Hassan, Malik Azam Khalil, Haroon Zahid, Khawar Ghafoor and Haroon Anwar, Advocates for the petitioner in W.P. No.10576/2026.

Rai Muhammad Naeem Kharal, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.10029/2026. Mr. Abdul Qayyum Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.12197/2026. M/s Sadiq Amin Cheema, Samran Khalid Tarar and Moeen Ahmad, Advocates for the petitioner in W.P. No.14156/2026. M/s Ch. Naseer Ahmad Kambooh, Fazley Rabi and Syed Zil-e-Husnain Sherazi, Advocates for the petitioner in W.P. No.21828/2026.

M/s Waqar Ahmad Hanjra, Rukhsana Mustafa Baloch and Barrister Mian Sohaib Ahmed, Advocates for the petitioner in W.P. No.26979/2026.

Respondents Mr. Anwaar Hussain, Assistant Advocate No.1 to 4 by General, Punjab.

Mr. Tahir Mahmood, Law Officer, PPSC.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Aslam, Law Officer

S&GAD.

MALIK MUHAMMAD AWAIS KHALID, J. This

judgment shall decide the present writ petition and the connected writ petitions, the detail whereof is mentioned in Schedule “A” attached hereto.

2.The petitioners have filed instant constitutional petition with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may very kindly be accepted, the impugned regulation No.28(b) of PPSC Regulations 2022, impugned important Note(i) of advertisement of PMS Ministerial Quota 2024 bearing advertisement No. 38/2024, to the extent of candidates who will qualify the written examination shall be called at 1:5 ratio for interview, may very kindly be declared as illegal, unlawful, void ab initio, nullity in the eye of law, discriminatory, irrational, illogical, result of bad drafting, violative to fundamental rights of the petitioners as guaranteed under Articles 9, 10-А, 14, 18, 25 & 27 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the same may very kindly be struck down, being irrational, illogical, result of bad drafting, being not published in the Punjab Official Gazette at the time of advertisement of PMS Ministerial Quota 2024 and the respondents may very kindly be directed to call the petitioners being qualified candidates of written examination of PMS Ministerial Quota 2024 for interview/viva voce, without applying the formula of 1:5 ratio for interview, from the qualified candidates of written examination of PMS Ministerial Quota-2024, in the interest of justice.

It is further prayed that during pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners may very kindly be provisionally allowed to appear in the interview/viva voce for the posts of PMS Ministerial Quota 2024 OR in alternative the respondents may very kindly be restrained from issuing schedule of interview/viva voce/psychological assessment for PMS Ministerial Quota 2024, in the interest of justice.

Any other relief which this honorable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also very kindly be granted to the petitioners.”

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners have called in question the legality of Note No.(i) contained in Advertisement No.38/2024 dated 19.12.2024 issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (the “PPSC”) for recruitment against 21 posts of Provincial Management Service (PMS), BS-17 (Selection from Ministerial Quota) at a ratio of 1:5, as well as the alleged amendment in Regulation 28(b) of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2022 (the “Regulations”), to the extent that candidates qualifying the written examination are to be called for interview at a ratio of 1:5.

3.Briefly stated, on the requisition of the Government of the Punjab, the PPSC advertised 21 posts of PMS (Ministerial Quota) through Advertisement No.38/2024 dated 19.12.2024.

The advertisement specifically prescribed the eligibility criteria, syllabus, qualifying standards and other conditions governing the examination process. One of the Important Notes appended to the advertisement provided that a candidate

must obtain 40% marks in each subject and 50% marks in aggregate to qualify and that the candidates qualifying the written examination would be called for interview at a ratio of

4.The petitioners applied for the said examination and appeared therein. They successfully qualified Phase-I and thereafter Phase-II of the examination. However, only 106 candidates were called for interview/viva voce against the advertised posts in accordance with the ratio mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioners, despite having secured the minimum qualifying marks, were not shortlisted for interview, therefore, instituted the instant petition.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners fulfilled all conditions prescribed for the written examination by obtaining the requisite qualifying marks and, therefore, acquired a vested right to be called for interview. It is argued that the respondents illegally restricted the number of candidates by applying a ratio of 1:5 for interview.

6.He further submits that the alleged amendment in Regulation 28(b) of the Regulations was never published in the official gazette, therefore, could not be enforced against the petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, any statutory instrument or delegated legislation becomes enforceable only after publication in the official gazette. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has

relied upon judgments reported as Dr. Shahbaz Mujtaba Ghauri vs. Punjab Public Service Commission through Chairman Lahore and 2 others [2020 PLC (C.S.)127], Messrs Bio Leads (Pvt.) Limited and others vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and others (2025 CLC 1715), Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others Human Rights Cases Nos.8340, 9504-G, 13936-G decided on 28th April, 2010 (2010 SCMR 1301), Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others vs. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 808), wherein it has been held that statutory instruments, rules or regulations requiring publication in the official gazette attain enforceability only after such publication.

7.Learned counsel further argues that in PMS Ministerial Quota examinations all candidates securing the prescribed qualifying marks were not called for interview and, therefore, the respondents have acted discriminatorily by adopting a different criterion in the present recruitment process. It is also contended that PMS Ministerial Quota and PMS Competitive Examination constitute the same service and there is no lawful basis for treating the two categories differently for the purpose of interview.

8.Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate General, assisted by the learned Law Officer for the PPSC, opposes the petition and submits that the petitioners participated in the

recruitment process with full knowledge of all conditions contained in the advertisement. The criteria regarding calling candidates for interview at a ratio of 1:5 was expressly incorporated in the advertisement and formed part of the recruitment process from its inception.

9.It is argued that once the petitioners accepted the terms of the advertisement and participated in the examination without objection, they are estopped from challenging the same after being declared unsuccessful in securing a place within the prescribed ratio.

10.The learned Law Officer further submits that no vested right accrued to the petitioners merely on obtaining minimum qualifying marks in the written examination. According to him, the right of a candidate extends only to fair consideration in accordance with the prescribed criteria. Since the respondents have uniformly applied the same criteria to all candidates, no discrimination has been committed.

11.It is further contended that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as the impugned action is founded primarily upon the terms of the advertisement which were known to all candidates before commencement of the recruitment process.

Learned Law Officer relied on case reported as Fazal Dad vs.

Col. (Rtd.) Ghulam Muhammad Malik and others (PLD 2007 SC 571), Ibrar Hussain and others vs. Government of

N.W.F.P through Secretary, board of Revenue and others (2001 SCMR 914), Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and others vs. Anwarul Haq Ahmed and others (2013 SCMR 1687), Aziz Ahmad vs. Syed Irshad Hussain Shah and 18 others (2019 YLR 355).

12.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

13.The pivotal question requiring determination of the maintainability of this writ petition as to whether the petitioners after participating in the recruitment process appeared in written examination under the terms and conditions specified in the impugned advertisement and after the lapse of considerable time, can challenge the criteria providing for shortlisting of candidates for interview at a ratio of 1:5.

14.A perusal of Advertisement No.38/2024 reveals that the condition regarding calling successful candidates for interview at a ratio of 1:5 was expressly incorporated therein. The petitioners admittedly applied pursuant to the said advertisement, appeared in the examination and subjected themselves to the entire selection process without raising any objection at the relevant time. Having participated in the process with open eyes, they cannot subsequently assail a

condition of the advertisement merely because the outcome has not been favourable to them.

15.It is settled law that a candidate who consciously participates in a recruitment process cannot challenge the prescribed criteria after declaration of the result. Such conduct attracts the principle of acquiescence and estoppel on such selection. Reliance can be placed upon the case law reported as Waheed Khan and others vs. Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others [2021 PLC(C.S.) 1114]. Operative part is reproduced as under:

“9. Besides, during the course of arguments, it was disclosed that almost more than 3 lac candidates have appeared in the NTS against 17000 vacant posts of teaching cadres and the petitioners too, participated in the test but could not qualify the same. This act on their part amounts to estoppel as on one hand, they have challenged the impugned advertisement while on the other hand, they participated in the impugned process of selection which amounts to acquiescence on their part, debarring them to approach this court through the present petition.”

Further reliance can be placed on the case titled as the State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others (1974) 3 Supreme Court Cases 220, operative part whereof is reproduced as under:

“12. It was, however, contended by Dr. Singhvi on behalf of the respondents that since Rule 8 of Part C makes candidates who obtained 45% or more in the competitive examination eligible for appointment, the State Government had no right to introduce a new rule by which they can restrict the appointments to only those who have scored not less than 55%. It is contended that the State Government have acted arbitrarily in fixing 55% as the minimum for selection and this is contrary to the rule referred to above. The argument has no force Rule 8 is a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum qualifications who may be considered for appointment. The list is prepared in order of merit. The one higher in rank is deemed to be more meritorious than the one who is lower in rank. It could never be said that one who tops the list is equal in merit to the one who is at the bottom of the list. Except that they are all mentioned in one list, each one of them stands on a separate level of competence as compared with another. That is why Rule 10(ii), part C speaks of "selection for appointment". Even as there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointments to be made, there is no constraint on the Government fixing a higher score of marks for the purpose of selection. In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high- standards of competence to fix a score which is much higher than the one required for more eligibility. As shown in the letter of the Chief Secretary already referred to, they fixed a

minimum of 55% for selection as they had done on a previous occasion. There is nothing arbitrary in fixing the score of 55% for the purpose of selection, because that was the view of the High Court also previously intimated to the Punjab Government on which the Haryana Government thought fit to act. That the Punjab Government later on fixed a lower score is no reason for the Haryana Government to change their mind. This is essentially a matter of administrative policy and if the Haryana State Government think that in the interest of judicial competence persons securing less than 55% of marks in the competitive examination should not be selected for appointment, those who got less than 55% have no right to claim that the selections be made of also those candidates who obtained less than the minimum fixed by the State Government. In our view the High Court was in error in thinking that the State Government had somehow contravened Rule 8 of Part C.”

16.The contention that the petitioners acquired a vested right to be called for interview upon securing minimum qualifying marks is equally misconceived. Qualifying marks merely render a candidate eligible for further consideration.

They do not create the right to be called for interview if failed to satisfy the conditions contained in the advertisement governing the interview in the recruitment process.

17.In the present case, the criteria under challenge was expressly incorporated in the advertisement itself and was

made known to every candidate prior to submission of applications. The petitioners voluntarily participated in the process subject to that criteria. Therefore, the cited precedents are distinguishable and do not provide assistance to the petitioners in the peculiar facts of the present case.

18.Every recruitment process is governed by the conditions contained in the relevant advertisement. The petitioners have failed to challenge the impugned criteria, before participation into the examination and after the lapse of time all candidates have to go through same recruitment process.

19.The Court is also mindful of the settled principle that matters relating to recruitment, shortlisting and selection fall primarily within the domain of the PPSC. Judicial review in such matters is confined to examine illegality, mala fide, arbitrariness or violation of law. Notwithstanding, while submitting the applications for the Provincial Management Service (Selection from Ministerial Quota) as candidature, petitioners admitted the disclaimer mentioned at serial No.37 which is reproduced as under:

“I certify that all information in the application form submitted by me is correct and in case any information is found to be incorrect, it will disqualify my candidature. I also certify that I have read all requirements/ conditions of this post alongwith general instructions in this regard.”

The above statement clarified that petitioners have carefully read, understood, and accepted all the eligibility criteria, terms

and conditions of the advertised post, the general instructions governing the recruitment process, and all directions, notifications, corrigenda, and guidelines issued by the recruiting authority from time to time. They undertake to comply with and abide by all such instructions, conditions, rules, and procedures throughout the recruitment process, in the event of their selection. They acknowledged that failure to comply with any of the prescribed conditions or instructions, or violation of any requirement applicable to the post, may result in the rejection of their candidature or any other action deemed appropriate by the competent authority in accordance with law. Hence, in the case of Sardar Ali Khan v. State Bank of Pakistan and others (2022 SCMR 1454), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, while endorsing the principle stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition (Reissue), Vol. 16, para. 957, as reproduced in Law of Evidence by M.

Munir (17th Edition), observed that a person may not approbate and reprobate expresses that the person in question having a choice between two courses of conduct is to be treated as having made an election from which he cannot resile.

20.It is equally well settled that the formulation of policy and framing of Rules fall exclusively within the domain of the competent authority. This Court, while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction can examine the legality of executive or statutory action and impugned regulations. But

petitioners appeared in the examination on the footing of this public notice and were well aware of its contents, as writ petitioners, they cannot assail the validity of this provision at present. Petitioners have been voluntarily participated in the examination after expressly accepting and undertaking to abide by the applicable Rules and Regulations, is estopped, on the well-settled principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, from challenging the same at this stage.

21.For what has been discussed above and consideration of the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court finds that the impugned policy decision/rules/regulations and criteria contained in impugned advertisement regarding calling candidates for interview at a ratio of 1:5 does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage of recruitment process. Consequently, this writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

(Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

(Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid)

JUDGE

**وقار

Schedule “A” In Writ Petition No.9086 of 2026 Muhammad Naeem & 21 others Vs.

Punjab Public Service Commission through its Secretary & 03 others

Dated 06.07.2026

Sr. Case No. Title No.

W.P. No.14156 Asad Aftab Langha etc. vs. Province of 2026 of the Punjab etc.

W.P. No.26979 Muhammad Ali Nawaz vs. PPSC of 2026 etc.

W.P. No.12197 3 Yasir Raheem vs. PPSC etc.

of 2026 W.P. No.11484 4 Muhammad Umair vs. PPSC etc. of 2026 W.P. No.10576 5 Ayesha vs. Chairman PPSC etc. of 2026 W.P. No.21828 6 Abid Abbas vs. PPSC etc.

of 2026 W.P. No.10029 7 Waqar Ahmad etc. vs. PPSC etc. of 2026

(Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid)

JUDGE

**وقار