IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali 
Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
 
Civil Appeal No.1184 of 2011 
Against 
judgment 
dated 
14.01.2011 
of 
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed 
in Appeal No.325(P)CS/2010. 
 
Mst. Basharat Jehan 
 
 
 
 
Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Director General, Federal Government Education, 
FGEI (C/Q) Rawalpindi & others 
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
 
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Khan, ASC  
 
For the Respondent(s):  
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG  
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
11.07.2014  
 
JUDGMENT  
 
MUSHIR ALAM, J-. Instant Civil Appeal is pursuant to 
leave granting order dated 7.12.2011 which reads as follows; 
“Inter alia contends that the learned Service Tribunal did not 
appreciate that in terms of Chapter II of National Command 
Authority Rules, para 7 (k), for initial appointment, the age 
prescribed was “not be less than 18 years or more than 35 years of 
age”. However, it was specifically stipulated therein that the said 
limit “may be relaxed in exceptional cases upto the maximum of 
forty five years by the Competent Authority as mentioned in the 
Delegation of Powers”. 
 
2. Having heard petitioner’s learned counsel at some length, leave is 
granted inter alia to consider whether while dismissing petitioner’s 
appeal, the learned Tribunal considered the afore-referred.” 
 
2. 
 
Facts that form basis for the above order appear to be that 
Appellant aggrieved by judgment dated 14.1.2011 passed by the Federal 
Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Service appeal filed by the 
Appellant, challenging her removal from service vide order dated 
20.3.2010 under Removal of Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000 
(herein after referred as RSO, 2000) on the ground of misconduct for 
allegedly not providing the proof of relaxation in age limit as required 
in her appointment letter dated 14.07.2007. 
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
2
 
3. 
 
In response to advertisement in news papers dated 
January 2007, Appellant applied for the position of Assistant Librarian 
(BPS-09). Beside other educational qualifications, upper age limit for 
the said post in the advertisement was 35 years. Last date for the 
application was 31.01.2007. 
 
4. 
 
Appellant applied for the said post, she appeared and 
qualified the written test, which was held on 18.2.2007. She appeared 
in interview and was selected on merits. She was issued appointment 
letter dated 14.07.07 and accordingly joined the Federal Government 
Girls High School, Risalpur, along with her joining she furnished 
certificate of age relaxation to the School, per certificate at (page-60). 
After joining the School, her qualifications were also got verified on 
11.8.2007 (Page-61). It is the case of the appellant, that to her utter 
surprise she received a letter dated 21.9.2007 notifying cancellation of 
her appointment on the ground of being over aged. Appellant 
challenged the order before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Service 
Tribunal vide its order dated 2.2.2010 set aside the termination order 
being against the principle of natural justice and without any show 
cause notice. 
 
5. 
 
Appellant was accordingly issued another Show Cause 
Notice dated 20.2.2010 on the same ground as mentioned in preceding 
paragraph. Appellant in response relied upon Notification dated 
28.11.2011 whereby age was generally relaxed by 05 years over and 
above 35 years of age as advertised against said post. She was however 
removed from services, under RSO, 2000, which order was also 
challenged through impugned Judgment dated 14.1.2011 passed by 
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
3
 
learned Federal Service Tribunal, whereby her Service Appeal was 
dismissed. 
6. 
 
Learned ASC for the appellant, contended that as per 
appointment letter dated 14.7.2007 of which condition No.(d) and (f) 
are relevant reads as follows: 
“d. The appointee will have to provide age relaxation proof (covered 
under the Federal Government age relaxation Policy) in case he/she 
is born before 01.08.1978. 
 
 
 
f. The appointees will draw pay/allowances as fixed by the Federal 
Government and will be regulated by such rules/orders as are in 
force or may be made by the Federal Government/Department from 
time to time.” (underlined to emphasize).  
 
7. 
 
It was urged by the learned ASC for the Appellant that 
qualifying age against the subject post of Assistant Librarian (BPS-09), 
was clearly mentioned in the advertisement as 35 years, which was also 
as per Notification issued under Civil Servant (Appointment, 
Promotion and Transfer) Rule, 1973 dated 3rd June 2004, whereby age 
limit was revised from 25 years to 35 years (Page-62 0f the file).  
 
8. 
 
It was urged that the Appellant was of 37 years of age at 
the time of applying for said position and was entitled for general 
relaxation of 05 years of age as per Government Policy, which was 
applicable on all the department under the Federal Government, under 
Office Memorandum No.F.9/2/9 R5 dated 28th November, 2000. It 
was further urged that one Shahnaz Parveen appointed as M.TT was 39 
years of age at the urdu medium Girls Middle School, Malir Cantt, 
Karachi was also appointed and no exception to her being over aged 
was taken, thus Appellant is being discriminated. 
 
9. 
 
It was argued by the learned ASC for the appellant that in 
the first place no relaxation in age was required in view of the policy 
decision of the Federal Government, through Memorandum mentioned 
herein. It was next urged that if it was required, such was submitted at 
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
4
 
the time of joining and so also alongwith reply to Show Cause Notice 
(Page-40). It was stated that the policy decision as to age relaxation 
was being followed by various departments under the Federal 
Government, including Federal Directorate of Education/Respondents. 
To buttress his arguments he has drawn our attention to various 
advertisements including those issued by respondents for the similar 
post for subsequent years to show that maximum age for the 
appointment to various position including BPS-09, to which post the 
Appellant was appointed as per condition No.6 thereof is 35 years and 
it was specifically mentioned ”maximum age limit is 35 years, as per 
government policy relaxation of 05 years is given, therefore all such 
persons who are 40 years of age on the cut of date of application”, 
copies of such advertisements are available at pages No.44, 45, 46 and 
47. It was argued that Federal Service Tribunal did not advert to such 
aspect of the matter, which rendered the impugned judgment 
erroneous.  
10. 
 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, learned DAG urged that the 
maximum age for the subject position was 25 years and after giving 
relaxation of 05 years therefore for the subject post age was 30 years. 
According to him last date for the receipt of the applications is 
31.01.2007, appellant was 37 years 04 months and 14 days. Therefore, 
on the date of application, she was over aged and was nor eligible for 
the appointment without obtaining age relaxation from the competent 
authority as required, which she failed. According to learned DAG, 
appellant was rightly removed from services.  
 
11. 
 
When attention of learned DAG was drawn to the order of 
this Court dated 05.09.2013 which reads as follows; 
“We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned 
Deputy Attorney General at some length. Learned Deputy Attorney 
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
5
 
General has not been able to respond as to how the appellant was 
overage because admittedly she was 37 years of age at the time of 
appointment and in terms of the advertisement issued in the 
newspaper the maximum age limit was 35 years but there was 
relaxation of five years in terms of the notification No.F.9/2/9 R5 
dated 28.11.2000. Let the concerned official of the Ministry of 
Defence not below the rank of a Joint Secretary appear in Court for 
a date in the week commencing from 16.09.2013.” (Underlined to 
add emphasis) 
 
12. 
 
In response he has drawn our attention to Cabinet 
Division’s decision dated 10.9.1997 and Notification dated 13.02.2013, 
respectively made available through CMA.No.2105 of 2014 whereby, 
through first mentioned decision; the management and control of 
Educational Institutions which include Schools and Colleges in 
Cantonment and Garrison, now vest in Director Army Education, GHQ. 
And as per later Notification dated 13.02.2013, qualifying eligibility for 
the Librarian is 05 years experience as Assistant Librarian (BPS-09). 
He has attempted to show by comparative chart placed on record 
through referred CMA that originally age for the advertised position 
was 25 years and giving benefit of the subject notification it was 30 
years, but in the advertisement by typo error it was mentioned as 35 
years, as such petitioner cannot be extended further age relaxation. 
According to learned DAG, since 10.9.77 Control and management of 
all the School and Colleges in Cantonment and Garrison have been 
transferred to the DAE, GHQ Rawalpindi therefore all appointments, 
transfer and posting are to be carried out under such directive.. It may 
be noted that such placement of Schools and Colleges under the 
Administrative and Management control of the Respondents would not 
them take them out of the pale of Department of Federal Government; 
and would be bound by all the policy directive. It is not the case of the 
Respondents that Respondents have become autonomous body and 
therefore not bound by the directives of the Federal Government.  
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
6
 
13. 
 
The documents as relied upon in the CMA 2105/14 do not 
answer any quarry raised in the order reproduced in the preceding 
paragraph nor, as noted in the leave granting order as noted in the 
opening part of this judgment. Learned DAG admits that the age given 
against the advertised post of Assistant Librarian (BPS-09) was 
mentioned in the advertisement was 35 years. It was also admitted that 
no corrigendum to such purported error was issued. Learned DAG 
though state that age relaxation of 05 years was given by the Federal 
Government, but according to him it was already extended to the 
Petitioner and no further age relaxation is possible.  
 
14. 
 
As it could be gleaned from the record and as per 
Notification dated 28.11.2000, referred to in the order of this Court, 
noted above, age was revised and all the departments of the Federal 
Government were required to specifically mention such fact in the 
advertisement. As noted, in various advertisements placed on record, 
such fact finds mention.  Relevant paragraph of the notification reads 
as follows: - 
“The maximum age limit prescribed or initial appointment under 
any rules for the time being in force shall be relaxed for a period of 
five years. 
 
2. the above cited relaxation is with reference to the upper age limit 
prescribed in the recruitment rules of posts made under sub rule 
(2) of rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, promotion and 
Transfer) Rules, 1973 and is not applicable to the case of 
competitive Central Superior services Examination conducted by 
the Federal Public Service commission. 
 
3. All ministers/Divisions/Departments and the Federal public 
Service commission are, therefore, requested to clearly indicate in 
their advertisements that government has allowed general 
relaxation upto five years over the age limit prescribed in the 
recruitment rules of posts and given in the advertisement.” 
 
15. 
 
As noted in the narrative above, as per Notification issued 
under Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rule, 1973 
dated 3rd June 2004, original age limit fixed for the appointment to the 
post of BPS-09 was 25 years, which was revised to 35 years. In this view 
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
7
 
of the matter it cannot be said that she was over aged as she did not 
obtained age relaxation, as none was required. As noted above, if there 
was any lapse it was on the part of the Respondents. If the 
Notification/memorandum as noted above had gone unnoticed by 
them, it is not the fault of appellant. It is not the case of the 
Respondents that she procured the appointment letter through dubious 
means. Since appellant cannot be attributed any wrong on her part, 
respondents cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own oversight, 
lapse or ignorance of law (i.e. Notification/Memorandum of relaxation 
of general age dated 28.11.2000). 
 
16. 
 
The representation of the Appellant was dismissed on the 
ground inter-alia, that the qualifying age was wrongly mention in the 
advertisement as 35 years instead of 25 neither can be attributed to the 
appellant, nor any corrigendum was published in the newspapers to 
such an effect. Such position, taken now appears to be an after-thought. 
Appellant as noted above had joined the services after appearing in the 
qualifying test and so also qualified the interview. From the date of 
application dated 31.01.2007 till letter dated 14.07.2007 calling upon 
her to join and take charge on 1.8.2007 for seven months it did not 
occurred to the Respondents that she is over aged by two years 
(37.years) as against the age of 35 as advertised. We have also noted 
that in terms of Chapter-II of National Command Authority Rules,; 
para 7(K) for initial appointment the age prescribed was “not less than 
18 years or more than 35 years of age”. However it was specifically 
stipulated therein that the said limit “may be relaxed in exceptional 
cases upto 45 by the competent authority as mentioned in the 
Delegation of Powers” said Notifications/Policy directives were neither 
considered by the respondents nor by the Service Tribunal.    
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
8
 
 
17. 
 
Appellant served the Respondent-department to the 
satisfaction of the authority. It is not the case of the Respondents that 
the appellant did not possessed the required qualification for the 
relevant post of Librarian and or that she did not serve the department 
to their satisfaction. She had applied for the advertised post giving her 
full particulars, including her qualification and age. Even if it is 
presumed that the competent authority over sighted her age, it would 
be deemed to have been relaxed in exercise of power vested in the 
Authority.  There is no denial that one Shehnaz Parveen was   also 
appointed as MIT in a school at Malir, Karachi was of 39 years of Age 
and no exception to her being over age was taken. If that be the case, 
Appellant is justified to urge that she has been discriminated. since she 
was issued joining  letter on 14.7.2007  she joined the school at 
Risalpur on 1.8.2007 as required. At the time of joining she submitted 
the age relaxation certificate at the time of joining the School, such 
certificate to such effect was placed on record (page-59).  
18. 
 
Under these facts and circumstances a right had come to 
vest in the appellant on issuance of appointment letter and more so 
after joining the service. In the case of Ghulam Murtaza v. Federation 
of Pakistan (2011 PLC (CS) 709) passed by learned Division Bench of 
Sindh High Court placing reliance on the case of Jabbar Malik v. 
Province of Sindh and others, last mention judgment was also upheld 
by this Court in  Civil Petition No.426-K to 436-K of 2008, it was held 
that  once a person is appointed after fulfilling all the codal formalities,  
appointment letter is issued, it was held that a vested right is created 
and appointment letter could not be withdrawn. Similar view was taken 
in the earlier decision of the same Court by another learned Bench 
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
9
 
reported as Muhammad Farooq m Memon v Government of Sindh 
(1986 CLC 1482). 
 
19. 
 
As noted, above, general benefit of age relaxation extended 
to the employees of the Federal Government across board and extend 
to all departments under the Federal government pursuant to any 
policy decision cannot be denied on the assumption that particular 
department is not bound by such decision as it has its own rule. Such 
course is dangerous and amounts to challenge the authority of Federal 
Government, which course is not approved. Nothing was brought on 
record to show that such directive/policy decision expressed through 
Memorandums/ Notifications were not applicable to the respondents. 
Age relaxation of upper age limit for the direct recruitment to the 
advertised Post (of Librarian BPS-09) in the  Directorate of Education 
in GHQ, which is also under the Federal Government, has not been 
denied by the respondents such benefit cannot be denied without any 
justifiable reason, which regretfully was not brought to the notice of 
this Court.  
 
20. 
 
Once a right is accrued to the appellant by appointment 
letters issued after complying with all the codal formalities could not be 
taken away on mere assumption and or supposition and or whims and 
fancy of any executive functionary. Such right once vests, cannot be 
destroyed or withdrawn as legal bar would come into play under the 
well doctrine of locus poenitentiae,  well recognized and entrenched in 
our jurisprudence (One may refer to Director, Social Welfare, NWFP, 
Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1350).  
 
C. A.No.1184 of 2011 
                                                           
10
 
21. 
 
In view of the forgoing reasons impugned judgment of 
Federal Service Tribunal (FST) dated 14.01.2011 is set aside and Civil 
Appeal is allowed in following terms: - 
(i). 
Appellant shall be given joining within one month 
from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 
 
(ii). 
Seniority will be counted from the date of 
appointment letter dated 14.07.2007. 
 
(iii). However, no back benefit will be extended to the 
appellant for the period she remained out of office 
one month from the date of this order. 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad, the 
11th July, 2014 
Not approved for reporting 
Sarfraz Ahmad/* 
 
