Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 MLD 120
Court / Jurisdiction: ISLAMABAD
Parties: Bahr-ul-Amin vs Federation of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Law and Justice DivisionHonorable Justice Muhammad Azam KhanBarrister M. Usama Rauf
This judicial decision was delivered by the ISLAMABAD. The matter involves proceedings between Bahr-ul-Amin and Federation of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Law and Justice DivisionHonorable Justice Muhammad Azam KhanBarrister M. Usama Rauf, officially reported as 2026 MLD 120. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2026 M L D 120 [Islamabad] Before Muhammad Azam Khan, J Bahr-ul-Amin---Petitioner Versus Federation of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Law and Justice Division and 2 others---Respondents Writ Petition No. 948 of 2025, decided on 22nd September, 2025. (a) Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977)--- ----Ss.3, 7 & 10---CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019, R.7---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 242---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11---Constitutional petition challenging vires of rules---Maintainability---Vires of rules already upheld by Supreme Court---Res judicata---Applicability---Constitutional petition was hit by res judicata since Supreme Court had already upheld the vires of rules---Brief facts were that the petitioner filed a Constitutional petition seeking declarations that the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 were ultra vires the Constitution and R.7 in particular was unconstitutional, and that the Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) lacked authority to unilaterally frame such rules, which should instead be made by the FPSC as a whole with approval of the federal government---The legal issue before the Court was whether the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019, and in particular R.7, were unconstitutional on the ground that they were framed by the Chairman alone rather than by the full Commission acting under its statutory authority ?---Held: Pursuant to Art.242, the FPSC Ordinance, 1977, was promulgated, S.3 of which defined the composition of the commission, while S.7 enumerated its functions---These provisions, inter alia, authorized the commission to conduct examinations, advise the President on recruitment policies, and hold promotional examinations as to be specified by the federal government and in light of the said provisions, CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 were framed---The report furnished by the commission further revealed that the vires and validity of the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 had already been subjected to judicial scrutiny before the Supreme Court, as well as before the High Courts and on each occasion, the Rules were upheld as having been lawfully framed and duly approved by the federal government---In the presence of such authoritative pronouncements, the matter could not be re-agitated merely by altering the form of the relief sought---Grievance raised by the petitioner was misconceived and devoid of substance---The challenge to the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 did not with stand Constitutional or legal scrutiny, particularly when the Supreme Court had already affirmed their validity---Constitutional petition was barred by the principle of res judicata and failed on merit as well and was dismissed. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.11---Res judicata, doctrine of---Scope---Applicability---The doctrine of res judicata, which is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence, operates as a complete bar to the re-litigation of issues already settled by competent Courts---Entertaining a petition which has been conclusively determined up to the level of the Apex Court would amount not only to disregarding binding precedent but also to unsettling a matter. Barrister M. Usama Rauf for Petitioner. Raja Zamir-ud-Din Ahmed, A.A.G. M. Arshad, Assistant Director, FPSC. Malik Muhammad Khalid for NAdra. Date of hearing: 8th September, 2025. Judgment Muhammad Azam Khan, J.---Through the instant Constitutional Petition, the Petitioner has made the following prayer:- A. Declare that the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 ultra vires the Constitution and the law. B. Declare Rule 7 of the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 violative of the Constitution and the law. C. Declare that the Chairman cannot make Rules to regulate the statutory functions of the Commission on his own volition and that it is the Commission s function to regulate/oversee competitive examinations. D. Direct that the Rules for the Competitive Examinations for CSS be framed after meaningful/constructive say/role/advice of the Commission. 2. As stemmed from the above prayer, the Petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 are ultra vires the Constitution and that the Chairman of the FPSC, in his individual capacity, has no authority to frame Rules regulating the statutory functions of the Commission. 3. In order to appreciate the contention of the Petitioner, a report was sought from the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). 4. Learned Assistant Attorney General, on instructions from the Commission, at the very outset, questioned the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that the Rules under challenge had been duly approved by the Federal Government; and the petition, as framed and worded, suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. 5. The FPSC is an independent statutory body deriving its validity from Article 242 of the Constitution. For ease of reference, Article 242 is reproduced below: - 242. Public Service Commission. (1) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] in relation to the affairs of the Federation, and the Provincial Assembly of a Province in relation to the affairs of a Province may, by law, provide for the establishment and constitution of a Public Service Commission. [(1A) The Chairman of the Public Service Commission constituted in relation to the affairs of the Federation shall be appointed by the President [on the advice of the Prime Minister] [(1B) The Chairman of the Public Service Commission constituted in relation to affairs of a Province shall be appointed by the Governor on advice of the Chief Minister.] (2) A Public Service Commission shall perform such functions as may be prescribed by law. 6. Pursuant to Article 242, the FPSC Ordinance, 1977, was promulgated. Section 3 thereof defines the composition of the Commission, while Section 7 enumerates its functions. These provisions, inter alia, authorize the Commission to conduct examinations, advise the President on recruitment policies, and hold promotional examinations as may be specified by the Federal Government. Both Sections are reproduced below: 3. Composition of the Commission: - (1) There shall be a Federal Public Service Commission. (2) The President shall by regulations determine (a) the number of members of the Commission and their conditions of service; and (b) the number of members of the staff of the Commission and their conditions of service: Provided that, the salary, allowances and privileges of a member of the Commission shall not be varied to his disadvantage during his term of office. (3) The Chairman and other members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President. (4) The Commission shall have (a) not less than one half of the members who shall be persons having held office in the service of Pakistan in basic pay scale 21 or above post: Provided that no serving Government servant shall be appointed a member. (b) at least one member each from (i) retired judges of the superior judiciary; (ii) retired officers not below the rank of Major-General or equivalent of the Armed Forces; and (iii) women and the private sector possessing such qualifications and experience as the Federal Government may by rules prescribe. (5) No proceedings or act of the Commission shall be invalid merely on the ground of the existence of a vacancy in, or a defect in the constitution of, the Commission. 7. Functions of the Commission. - (1) The functions of the Commission shall be (a) to conduct tests and examinations for recruitment of persons to All-Pakistan Services, the civil services of the Federation and civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation in basic pay scales 16 and above or equivalent; (1a) The recruitment to the post in basic pay scale 11 to 15 made by any authority or person on or after 28th May 2003, other than through the Commission, shall, notwithstanding any provision of this Ordinance or any other law, rule, notification or any order, decision of judgment of any court or forum, be deemed to be, and always to have been, validly made, taken or done and shall not be called in question in any court or forum or any ground whatsoever. (b) to advise the President (i) on matters relating to qualifications for and method of recruitment to, services and posts referred to in clause (a); (ii) on the principles to be followed in making initial appointments to the services and posts referred to in clause (a) and in making appointments by promotion to posts in BS 18 and above and transfer from one service or occupational group to another; and (iii) on any other matter which the President may refer to the commission; and (c) to hold examinations for promotion for such posts as the Federal Government may, from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, specify. Explanation. In this section, recruitment means initial appointment other than by promotion or transfer. In the light of the above provisions, the FPSC framed the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019. 7. The report furnished by the Commission further reveals that the vires and validity of the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 have already been subjected to judicial scrutiny before the august Supreme Court, as well as before the Lahore High Court and this Court. On each occasion, the Rules were upheld as having been lawfully framed and duly approved by the Federal Government. This Court itself, while adjudicating a similar question in F.A.O. No. 31 of 2017, had unequivocally held that the Impugned Rules do not suffer from any illegality or constitutional infirmity. In the presence of such authoritative pronouncements, the matter cannot be re-agitated merely by altering the form of the relief sought. 8. The doctrine of res judicata, which is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence, operates as a complete bar to the re-litigation of issues already settled by competent Courts. Entertaining the present petition would amount not only to disregarding binding precedent but also to unsettling a matter conclusively determined up to the level of the Apex Court. 9. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is constrained to hold that the grievance raised by the Petitioner is misconceived and devoid of substance. The challenge to the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 does not withstand constitutional or legal scrutiny, particularly when the august Supreme Court has already affirmed their validity. This Court cannot sit in appeal over what has been conclusively adjudicated by superior forums. Consequently, the instant petition is barred by the principle of res judicata and fails on merits as well. Accordingly, the petition in hand is dismissed. UN/180/Isl. Petition dismissed.