SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
 
Civil Petition No.29 of 2017 
[On appeal against the judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Peshawar 
High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.1032-P of 2016] 
 
Muhammad Aamir Khan 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Government of KPK through Senior Member 
Board of Revenue, KP & others 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mohmand, ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondents No.1-5 
: Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Addl.A.G. KP 
For Respondents No.6-7 
: Nemo 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 24.04.2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
GULZAR AHMED, J.— The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned 
judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the learned Division Bench 
of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, by which the Writ Petition 
No.1032-P of 2016 was dismissed.  
2. 
 
We have heard Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mohmand, 
learned ASC for the petitioner and have also gone through the 
record.   
3. 
 
The petitioner has filed Writ Petition with a prayer that 
he having passed Patwar Examination, 2009, and his name having 
been brought on the register of pass patwar candidates, his 
appointment as Patwari could not have been denied on the ground 
of over age while allowing such appointments to his colleagues/ 
juniors mentioned in the partwar list.  Learned ASC for the 
petitioner has contended that though vide notification dated 
01.10.2010 upper age limit for the post of Patwari was extended to 
35 years by amending existing NWFP Revenue & Estate 
Department 
(Tehsildar, 
Naib-Tehsildar/Subordinate 
Revenue 
C.P.No.29 of 2017 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
Service) Rules, 2008 (RED Rules), but contended that these rules 
were further relaxed and in this respect made reference to the 
NWFP Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age 
Limit) Rules, 2008 (Amending Rules).  So far this submission of 
the learned ASC for the petitioner is concerned, the notification 
dated 01.01.2010 reads as follows: 
“GOVERNMENT OF NWFP 
REVENUE & ESTATE DEPARTMENT 
 
Dated Peshawar the 01.01.2010 
NOTIFICATION 
No.______/Admn:VII/A. Relaxation 
In pursuance of the approval by 
the Chief Executive NWFP and in exercise of the Powers conferred by 
Section -26 of the NWFP Civil Servants Act, 1973 read with this 
Department Notification No.32102/Admin:I/135/SSRC, dated 26.12.2008, 
the following amendment in the NWFP Revenue & Estate Department 
(Tehsildari, Naib Tehsildari/Subordinate Revenue Service) Rules, 2008 
(Patwari S.No.8 Appendix):- 
AMENDMENT 
The Upper Age limit for the post of Patwari is extended to 35 years 
by amending the existing NWFP Revenue & Estate Department (Tehsildar, 
Naib Tehsildar/Subordinate Revenue Service) Rules, 2008 (Patwari S.No.8 
Appendix) once for all.  And no provision for age relaxation over 35 years 
will be allowed under any circumstances by any Authority. 
Sd/- 
Senior Member 
Board of Revenue” 
 
This amendment as noted above, was specifically made in the RED 
Rules, which specifically apply to the case of patwaris.  Amending 
Rules apparently have no application to the patwaris as the same 
are applicable to general employees of the provincial government.  
Thus, these rules having no application in the case of the 
petitioner, the relaxation of upper age as mentioned in these rules, 
relates only to the initial appointment of the general employees of 
the province. 
4. 
 
The learned ASC for the petitioner then referred to the 
order dated 06.12.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No.4867-P of 
2017 and also an order dated 05.10.2018 passed by another 
Division Bench of the same High Court in Writ Petition No.1199-P 
of 2018 to contend that as the petitioners in these two writ 
petitions have been appointed as Patwaris despite they being over 
C.P.No.29 of 2017 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
age in terms of notification dated 01.01.2010 beyond the one 
allowed by the notification, the petitioner be also granted similar 
relief.  Before we deal with the question, we would like to 
reproduce below the relevant para of the impugned judgment 
wherein the High Court has dealt with the relevant laws in the 
matter of making appointment of Patwaris and the age relaxation 
to be granted to them:   
“5. 
In view of the respective stance of the parties, passing of 
Patwar Examination by the petitioner in 2009 and consequent 
entry in the relevant Patwar Register maintained by the Deputy 
Commissioner, pursuant to Chapter-3 Part-II Para 3.6 of the Land 
Record Manual is undisputed.  Ibid para explicitly provides method 
of recruitment/appointment of Patwari which for ready reference is 
reproduced as follows:- 
3.6 
List of Patwar pass persons:(1) For each Sub-
Division, a list of all Patwar Pass persons shall be 
maintained 
by 
the 
Sub-Divisional 
Collector/Political 
Assistant in Form P-I given in Appendix ‘G’ with a view to 
have ready information about the availability of eligible 
persons in the Sub-Division to facilitate filling up the 
vacancies.  However, the appointment of Patwaris shall be 
made strictly in accordance with the Service Rules and the 
Recruitment Policy as may be applicable at the relevant 
time. 
(2) 
Maximum educational qualification for the Patwari 
is Matric/Secondary School Certificate.  The name of only 
those persons shall be enrolled, who are bona fide 
residents of the concerned Sub-Division. 
(3) 
The names of the eligible persons shall be added to 
the list as and when the result of the Patwar Examination 
is received and no eligible person shall be refused 
enrolment. 
(4) 
The aforesaid list shall be verified and updated by 
the Collector concerned at least once in a years so as to 
exclude the name of those, who have become un-available 
on account of death, migration, employment on any other 
post, etc. 
(5) 
A separate list of Patwar Pass persons belonging to 
Cholistan area will be maintained by the Colonization 
Officer concerned to meet the requirements of the 
organizations.” 
 
6. 
Para-3.6(1) provides in unequivocal terms appointment of 
Patwari shall be made strictly in accordance with the Service Rules 
and the Recruitment Policy as may be applicable at the relevant 
time which is of great significance for the purpose of instant 
petition.  It is an admitted fact that petitioner at the time of 
convening the Departmental Selection Committee Meeting was over 
age by six months.  While maximum age for appointment of Patwari 
has been extended to 35 years, vide Notification dated 01.01.2010 
which is sufficient relaxation for the purpose of appointment, as 
compared to other departments.  While extending age limit, it is 
further provided in the same notification that no provision for age 
relaxation over 35 years will be allowed under any circumstances 
by any authority.  By inserting a condition, the competent authority 
has once for all extended the maximum age limit, for all and 
sundry, which is applicable without seeking any age relaxation 
from any concerned quarter.    Further embargo has been placed on 
C.P.No.29 of 2017 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
the authority against age relaxation including the age relaxation 
Rules.  
7. 
Learned counsel for petitioner tried to make out a case of 
discrimination that one Asad Zaman has been appointed by 
extending him benefit of age relaxation.  It appears that in that 
case Notification dated 01.01.2010 issued by the Senior Member 
Board of Revenue KPK was not brought in the notice nor was 
considered. Hence a wrong precedent cannot be made basis for 
agitating a right because two wrongs cannot make one right.  It is 
settled law that things are required to be done as prescribed by 
law and rules on the subject and not otherwise.” 
 
5. 
 
Thus, we note that the impugned order dated 
17.11.2016 being in the field, there is no mention of the same in 
the orders dated 06.12.2017 passed in the Writ Petition No.4867-P 
of 2017 and 05.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.1199-P of 2018, 
rather it appears that while passing the order dated 05.10.2018 in 
Writ Petition No.1199-P of 2018 the Bench has squarely relied 
upon the order dated 06.12.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.4897-
P of 2017.  The grave aspect of the matter that has really 
astonished us during the course of hearing was that Mr. 
Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mohmand, learned ASC for the petitioner 
in the present petition has also appeared before the High Court in 
the said Writ Petitions.  There is no presence of respondents’ 
counsel in the order nor anything written in the said order that 
respondents have filed any reply or even notices to the respondents 
have been issued by the Court.  The Court in the said Writ 
Petitions mainly on the basis of facts, as mentioned before it, has 
proceeded to dispose of the petitions by granting relief to the 
petitioner in the Writ Petition of relaxation of age beyond the one 
as provided in the notification dated 01.01.2010.  In the entire 
body of the orders of the High Court no law or rule appears to have 
been considered on the basis of which the petitioners in the said 
petitions were claiming relief and the Court passed order merely on 
the asking of the petitioners in the Writ Petitions without bothering 
to note or examine as to whether the petitioners were at all entitled 
to the relaxation of upper age limit or not under the relevant law 
and the rules made thereunder.  Even the notification dated 
01.01.2010 was not considered.  Same mistake has been 
committed while passing the order dated 05.10.2018 in the above 
Writ Petition No.1199-P of 2018.  The reading of these two orders 
C.P.No.29 of 2017 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
regretfully shows non-seriousness of the concerned Benches in 
dealing with such cases before it and casually passed the orders 
without at all applying their mind or reading the relevant law or 
rules applicable to the case.  It is also amazing to note that the two 
orders referred to above specifically go against the established rule 
of precedent to be applied with all rigour and force in that where 
there already existed in the field an order/judgment of the Division 
Bench on the subject which is being dealt with and considered in 
subsequent cases, said earlier order/judgment has to be adhered 
to and a different opinion from the one taken in the earlier 
order/judgment could not be expressed as such could only be 
done by referring the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of 
a larger Bench.  These two orders dated 06.12.2017 and 
05.10.2018 are in grave violation of law and least to be expected 
from the high office of the Judges of the High Court for the reason 
that the earlier judgment dated 17.11.2016 was altogether 
supressed.  The Judges are expected in all circumstances to be 
knowing the law and such is their hallmark as entrenched in the 
principle that ‘a Judge must wear all laws on sleeve of his robes’.   
6. 
 
It is really astonishing to note that in the Writ Petition 
No.4867-P of 2017 the respondents have not been heard and it is 
not clear as to whether any opportunity of hearing to them was at 
all provided.  In the subsequent order dated 05.10.2018, the Court 
has shown post-haste in deciding the Writ Petition before it just by 
putting on notice Mr. Mujahid Ali Khan, AAG, who happened to be 
present in the Court who raised no objection then and there 
without seeking any instructions from the respondent-department.  
Even in this petition, we note that no notice to the respondents 
was ordered to be issued before passing order dated 05.10.2018 
disposing of the petition.   
7. 
 
Before we further deal with the instant matter and give 
our final opinion as to how these two orders were dealt with, we 
direct the Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, to transmit 
Record & Proceeding of Writ Petitions No.4867-P of 2017 & 1199-P 
of 2018 in a sealed cover.  Such be done by the Registrar within a 
period of two weeks.   
C.P.No.29 of 2017 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
8. 
 
So far as the present case is concerned, we have noted 
that the High Court in passing the impugned judgment has dealt 
with and considered all relevant laws and rules applicable to the 
case of the petitioner but also taken into consideration the 
notification dated 01.01.2010 and thus, non-suited the petitioner 
as his age at the time of his turn for being appointed was beyond 
maximum upper age limit, the Court had no power to further relax 
the upper age limit for that the jurisdiction of the Court is to apply 
the law and rules as it appear on the statute book.  The vires of 
law itself have not been challenged by the petitioner, thus, no 
deviation from the said notification could be made on any principle 
of law.   
9. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this 
petition, the same is dismissed and leave refused.   
10. 
 
The office is directed to prepare separate file in terms 
of para-7 above and put up the same immediately before the Court 
on receipt of R&P of the above Writ Petitions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Bench-II 
ISLAMABAD 
24.04.2019 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
JUDGE 
 
*Hashmi* 
JUDGE 
 
 
