IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2016 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 03.06.2016 
passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in 
FAO No. 18/2016) 
 
Haider Abbas 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
FPSC through its Chairman 
 …Respondent 
 
 
For the Petitioner:  
In person 
 
 
For the Respondent: 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood, DAG 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Usman Hayat Gondal, Director Legal 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mumtaz Shoukat, A.D. FPSC 
 
Date of Hearing:  
24.01.2017 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- In the CSS Competitive Examination-
2011, final result of which was announced in the year 2012, the 
petitioner who appeared from Gilgit-Baltistan-FATA region was placed 
at Serial No. 249 on the overall merit list. Though his first priority was 
to seek recommendation against a vacancy in Foreign Service, 
however, based on his placement on merit quota of Gilgit-Baltistan-
FATA region, he could only be recommended for Inland Revenue 
Service, which was second on his priority list. He was accordingly 
notified by the Establishment Division on 10.07.2012. He then joined 
service without any reservation. Then a vacancy occurred in Foreign 
Service on a seat that was allocated to one Ms. Mahin Habib in the 
Competitive Examination-2011 against women’s quota of Gilgit-
Baltistan-FATA region but she failed to join. This resulted in 
cancellation of her appointment vide Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ letter 
dated 22.04.2014. This vacancy was then re-advertised by Federal 
Public Service Commission to be filled from the successful women 
candidates of Competitive Examination-2013 that were held in the 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2016 
2
year 2014. This vacancy was thus allocated to one Ms. Saima Jameel. 
As this vacancy was originally advertised for Competitive Examination-
2011, in which the petitioner appeared, being a successful candidate 
from the same region and the Foreign Service was a group of his first 
priority, he thought that it was his right to seek appointment on this 
vacancy. The petitioner thus made a representation on 09.11.2015 to 
the Federal Public Service Commission for his reallocation from Inland 
Revenue Service to Foreign Service.    
 
2. 
 
The petitioner’s claim for his reallocation to Foreign 
Service was based on another ground as well. He maintained that a 
vacancy in Foreign Service Group on merit quota for Gilgit-Baltistan-
FATA region was wrongly created in the Competitive Examinations-
2010 as the ‘fraction’ available on merit quota for such examination 
was not sufficient enough to create vacancy and this ‘fraction’ ought to 
have been carried forward to the next year’s competitive examinations 
in which the petitioner appeared i.e. Competitive Examinations-2011 
and had this been done, a vacancy on merit quota in Foreign Service 
would have been available on which, on account of his placement on 
merit he would have been recommended.  
 
3. 
 
The Federal Public Service Commission, however, rejected 
the representation of the petitioner on both the grounds. It maintained 
that the seat claimed by the petitioner was reserved on women’s quota 
and not on merit quota of Foreign Service group and when it was not 
taken by Ms. Mahin Habib, it could be filled only by a female 
candidate, which was accordingly done when Ms. Saima Jameel was 
recommended. As to the petitioner’s other ground that vacancy in 
Foreign Service Group on merit quota was wrongly created in 
Competitive Examination-2010 on account of lack of requisite ‘fraction’ 
and such ‘fraction’ for that year ought to have been carried forward for 
creating vacancy in Competitive Examination-2011, the Federal Public 
Commission maintained that after allocation of the ‘fraction’ for 
Competitive Examination-2010, the same was sufficient to create one 
vacancy on merit quota in Foreign Service group for the Gilgit-
Baltistan-FATA region. Thus the Commission came to the conclusion 
that no right of the petitioner was infringed in the selection process. 
The petitioner challenged the decision of the Commission before the 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2016 
3
High Court in appeal which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, this 
petition has been filed.  
 
4. 
 
To present his case, the petitioner appeared in person and 
urged the same grounds which he urged before the Federal Public 
Service Commission as well as before the High Court. As the petitioner 
was conscious of the fact that the vacancy in question has already 
been filled with the selection of Ms. Saima Jameel, he sought creation 
of a supernumerary vacancy so that he could be accommodated. For 
the creation of supernumerary post, he cited a precedent of an officer 
whose services were transferred by the Commission from Railway 
Service to Inland Revenue Service in pursuance of a judgment of the 
Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi inspite of the fact that there was no 
vacancy. We also heard the counsel and representative of the 
Commission and examined the record.   
 
5. 
 
The stand of the Federal Public Service Commission on 
the first ground was that where a seat allocated to a particular quota 
is not taken and falls vacant after the training has commenced then it 
is carried forward to the next competitive examination as a vacancy 
available against the same quota. This is exactly what was done in the 
present case as is evident from the Statement of allocation of 
vacancies for Competitive Examinations-2011. This statement shows 
that in each group vacancies are to be created on merit quota, 
women’s quota and minorities’ quota, depending upon the sufficiency 
of the ‘fraction’ available for each of the three categories. Where a 
vacancy is created for a particular quota of the group, if the candidate 
to whom it is allocated fails to avail it then it is to be filled by a 
candidate of the same category and cannot be allocated to a candidate 
who is eligible from any of the remaining two categories. In the present 
case Mahin Habib was recommended on women’s quota in Foreign 
Service group but she failed to join service and thus her seat became 
vacant whereas the petitioner was a candidate on merit quota in 
Foreign Service group, thus was not entitled to raise claim against a 
vacancy occurring in women’s quota. The petitioner’s representation to 
the Commission that the seat that fell vacant from his region on 
account of failure of Ms. Mahin Habib to join service ought to have 
been given to him, therefore, does not appear to be legally tenable. 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2016 
4
    
6. 
 
As to the other ground of the petitioner that vacancy on 
merit quota in Foreign Service group in the Competitive Examination-
2010 was wrongly created, we have examined the Statement prepared 
for allocation of vacancies for Competitive Examination-2010. In terms 
of this statement, against 4% quota reserved under recruitment policy 
for Gilgit-Baltistan-FATA region, eight fresh vacancies for all the 
groups were created against the total ‘fraction’ of 8.40 allocated to this 
region for Competitive Examination-2010. This ‘fraction’ was further 
distributed whereby the ‘fraction’ that was allocated to merit quota 
was 7.14, to women’s quota it was 0.84 and to minorities quota it was 
0.42. Thus out of eight fresh vacancies created for all the groups of the 
region, seven were allocated to merit quota, based on available 
‘fraction’ of 7.14 and the remaining one vacancy was allocated to 
women’s quota based on available ‘fraction’ of 0.84. The seven 
vacancies created for merit quota were further distributed according to 
the formula whereby one vacancy on merit quota fell to the share of 
Foreign Service Group, which was accordingly allocated to the 
successful candidate who appeared in Competitive Examination-2010. 
Thus the vacancy on merit quota for Foreign Service Group created for 
Competitive Examination-2010 stood filled. The formula that was 
applied appears to be in consonance with the recruitment policy and 
the rules for competitive examinations as is evident from the two 
statements pertaining to allocation of vacancies for the Competitive 
Examinations of 2010 and 2011 that are at pages 50 and 51 of the 
case file. The petitioner’s stand that there was no justification to create 
vacancy on merit quota in Foreign Service Group for Competitive 
Examination-2010 and the ‘fraction’ ought to have been treated as 
unutilized and carried forward to Competitive Examination-2011 in 
which examinations the petitioner qualified, was not based on any 
lawful justification.  
 
7. 
 
Apart from the fact that the petitioner has no case on 
merits, 
his 
representation 
before 
the 
Federal 
Public 
Service 
Commission in the first place was also barred by time as it was 
belatedly made in the year 2015.  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2016 
5
8. 
 
In view of the above, petitioner’s representation was rightly 
rejected by the Federal Service Commission. This petition is therefore 
dismissed and leave is refused.   
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
24th of January, 2017 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram  
