THE SUPREME COURT o1 PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
PRES:EST: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE TJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAWED MAZAHAR ALT AKBAR NAQVI 
• -1 , �
• 
' �
'1 �
.- • . �
.• 
No.712  713 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 22.02.2018 passed by the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petitions No.5304-P 
and 5305-P of 2017). 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief 
Secretary, Peshawar and others. 
....App elk-1.11'4.$) 
Versus  
Zahoor Ahmed Khalil. 
(in C.71.712 of 2020) 
Muhammad Arsh a d 
(in C5.7)3 of 2020) 
For the Appellant(s): �Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, 
Addl. A. G. KP. 
Mr. Shahid Iqbal, Litigation 
Officer, KP, PSC. 
Mr. M. Tufail Khattak, Addl. 
Secy., Establishment, KP. 
(in Gus. 712 (is 713 of 2020) 
For the Respondent(s): �
In person. 
(in c1. 
2 of 2020) 
Mr. ishtiaq Haider, ASC. 
(appeared without filing en-ter appearance on 
behalf of Respondent but appeared with 
Court permission). 
(in 071.713 of 2020) 
Date of Hearing: �
01.02.2021. 
JUDGMENT 
T.J11.Z. UL  MIRAN,  J.- Through this single 
judgment, we propose to decide Civil Appeal No.712 of 2020 
and Civil Appeal No.713 of 2020 as they both arise out of the 
• 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.712 and 713 OP 2020 
2 
same impugned judgment of the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar dated 22.02.2018, 
2. �These appeals by leave of the Court are directed 
against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar 
dated 22.02.2018 through which constitutional petitions filed 
by the Respondents were allowed. 
Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of 
this lis are that on 01.12.2017 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Public 
Service Commission ("KP Service Commission") advertised 69 
posts of Officers in Provincial Management Service (BS-17). 
Such posts were required to be filled through competitive 
examination. However, 10% quota was reserved for in-service 
candidates. The Respondents who were serving as Caretakers 
(BS-11) in the Chief Minister's Secretariat, Government of 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were not allowed to participate in the 
PMS examination on the ground that they were not entitled to 
avail the benefit of 10% quota reserved for in-service 
candidates. Aggrieved of such refusal on the part of KP 
Service Commission to allow them to participate in the 
competitive examination for appointment against 10% quota, 
the Respondents approached the High Court in its 
constitutional jurisdiction. Through the impugned judgment 
dated 22.02.2018, such constitutional petitions of the 
Respondents were allowed. 
�
4. �Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide 
order dated 17.08.2020 in the following terms: 
CIVIL APPF.41.:3 NC.71 owl 713 CY, 
 '2020 
"The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service 
Commission (the petitioner) advertised 69 posts of Provincial 
Management Service (P11/1S) in BPS-.17, for competitive examination. 
Ten per cent quota was reserved for in service candidates. Khyber 
.Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007 (the 
Rules of 2007) has described the post of 'in service candidates' 
and such has been enumerated as Superintendents, Private 
Secretaries, Personal Assistants, Assistants, Senior Scale 
'Stenographers, Stenographers, Date Entry Operators, Computer 
Operators, Senior and Junior Clerks. The private respondents in 
C.Ps. No.349-P and 350-P of 2018 were employed as Caretakers 
(BPS-.1.1) and their posts were not enumerated in the Rules of 2007. 
They filed writ petitions in the Peshawar High Court which vide 
impugned judgment came to be allowed. The petitioner in C.P. 
No.260-P of 2019, also filed writ petition in the Peshawar High 
Court which was disposed of vide impugned judgment. 
2. 
The learned AAG contends that there being no mention of 
post of Caretaker in the Rules of 2007, the respondents in C.Ps. 
No.349-P and 350-P of 2018 and petitioner in C.P. No.260-P of 
2019 could not have been allowed to undertake the competitive. 
examination and further relies upon the judgment of this Court in 
the case reported as Government of  Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through 
Chief  Secretary,  Peshawar and others v.  Hayat Hussain. and 
others (2016 SCMR 1021). 
3. 
The submissions made by the learned AAG require 
consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in all the 
petitions to consider, inter alia, the same. The appeal stage paper-
books be prepared from the available record with liberty to the 
parties to file additional documents, if any, within a period of one 
month. As the matter relates to service, the Office is directed to fix 
these appeals expeditiously, preferably after three months." 
J. �The learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa has pointed out that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007 ("Rules, 2007") 
describe the posts of in-service candidate as Superintendents, 
Private, Secretaries, Personal Assistants, Assistants, Senior 
Scale Stenographers, Stenographers, Data Entry Operators, 
Computer Operators, Senior and Junior Clerks, etc. He 
4 �
114 
CM. APPEALS 14C1712 and 713 OP 2020 
maintains that the Respondents did not fall inany of the said 
categories nor were they covered by the Rules, 2007. He 
maintains that the Respondents fall in the definition of 
Household staff and in terms of Rule 10(2) of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion 
&Transfer) Rules, 1989 they have specifically been excluded 
from the application of Rules, 2007. He further maintains 
that the Respondents being attached with the Chief Minister's 
Secretariat are not borne on the cadre of the Provincial 
Secretariat As such, the High Court erred in law in extending 
the benefit of 10% quota in question to the Respondents. To 
substantiate his contentions, the learned Law Officer has 
placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported as 
Government of Khuber Pakhtunkhwa v. Haat Hussain ;201.6 
3CilV1R 1021) in which the questions involved in these appeals 
has elaborately been dealt with. 
6. �The learned ASC for the Respondents on the other 
hand submits that exclusion of the Respondents constitutes 
discrimination. He maintains that on their representation the.  
Chief Minister had made a recommendation that they may be 
allowed to participate in the competitive examination of PMS 
and avail the benefit of 10% quota. However, such direction 
was not implemented. The learned counsel further submits 
that the Respondents have no channel of promotion and it 
would cause injustice to them in case they are not allowed to
avail the benefit of the quota as prescribed in Rules, 2007. 
APPRALS NO.712 and 713 OF 2020 �
5 
7. �We have heard the learned Additional Advocate 
General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, learned A.SC for the 
Respondent in Civil Appeal No.713 of 2020, the Respondent 
in person in Civil Appeal No.712 of 2020 and have gone 
through the record with their assistance. For ease of 
reference, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow 
Schedule-I of the Rules, 2007 which prescribes the quota in 
question: 
"Ten percent by selection on merit, on the basis of 
competitive examination, to be conducted by the Commission 
in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule VII, 
from amongst persons holding substantive posts of 
Superintendents, Private Secretaries, Personal Assistants, 
Assistants, Senior Scale Stenographers, Stenographers, Data 
Entry Operators, Computer Operators, Senior and Junior 
Clerks who possesses post graduate qualification from a 
recognized University and have at least five years service 
under Government." 
A plain reading of the relevant Rule makes it 
abundantly clear that it is specific to a certain class of 
employees of the Government. It is not couched in language 
which may inclusive in its meaning and content or may 
permit an expensive and wider interpretation. The Rules, 
2007 provide 10% quota for persons holding specific posts 
and such posts have been spelt out as "Superintendents, 
Private Secretaries, Personal Assistants, Assistants, Senior 
Scale Stenographers, Stenographers, Data Entry Operators, 
Computer Operators, Senior and Junior Clerks". A further 
condition is that such persons must possess Postgraduate 
qualification from a recognized University and should have at 
• 
, �
7 • f.• �
'••• �
• �
- �
• • �
'• �
• �
• �
' • �
'• • • 
CIVIL APPEALS 110.712 and 713 OF 2020 �
IS 
least five years service under the Government. Although, the 
learned High Court has noticed the said provision, it has 
misdirected itself in interpreting the Rules, 2007 in a manner 
which in essence amounts to reading language in the Rules 
which is not there and a class of employees have specifically, 
intentionally and deliberately been excluded for policy 
reasons. 
8. 
It is abundantly clear to us that the Rules, 2007 
specifically created a class of Government employees to whom 
the benefit of 10% quota was provided to the exclusion of 
others and if the interpretations given by the High Court were 
to he accepted it would amount to not only reading in 
something which is not there but also extending and 
expanding the scope of the Rule which is the domain of the 
Executive and cannot lightly be interfered with without 
recording strong, cogent and compelling reasons. Such 
reasons have neither been recorded nor in our humble 
opinion were available in the instant matters. 
9. 
We further notice that the High Court has misread 
the Rules, 2007 and taken them out of context in observing 
that the Rules do not prescribe as to what should be the 
nature of experience required to participate in the competitive 
examination for appointment against the 10% quota posts. 
We are unfortunately unable to subscribe to that view. It is 
settled law that provisions of the Statutes and Rules have to 
be read in their context and unless otherwise provided or 
;FO 
CMG AMALS NO.712 and 713 OP 2020 
7 
there are compelling and lawful reasons to do otherwise the 
Rule of ejusdern, generis has to be followed. Even otherwise, 
the Rule of ejusdem generis does not support in any manner 
the interpretation adopted by the High. Court, A. plain reading 
of the relevant Rule read in the context of its ordinary 
meaning and scope would show that five years experience 
under the Government was relatable to the titles/job 
descriptions mentioned in the earlier part of the Rule. 
Therefore, holding that because there was no specific and 
elaborate description of the sort of experience that was 
required, a totally unrelated experience, (in the present case 
working as a Caretaker / Household staff) would also count 
as experience of Government service has appeared to us to be 
without sound legal basis and for that matter any basis at all. 
We also note that the Respondents had. not altogether been 
excluded from participating in the competitive examination 
insofar as if they met the criteria for participation that they 
are not precluded from doing so by competing in open merit. 
Further and for the same reason we have not found any 
discriminatory treatment because the Respondents are not 
similarly placed vis-à-vis the persons/posts identified and 
specified in the rules and such persons/posts constitute a 
separate class, there being qualitative difference between the 
two fulfilling the requirement of intelligible differentia. 
10. �The Respondent in the connected matter (Civil 
Appeal No, 7-14 of 2020) has frankly conceded before us that 
he had participated in open merit a number of times but 
CIVIL APPEALS 50 7 
 12 and 713 05 2020 
could not succeed on account of being placed lower in the 
merit list as against the available seats. We are afraid that 
does not constitute justification to expand the scope of the 
quota to include all members of ministerial staff whether or 
not they fell in the categories provided in the Rules, 2007. 
11, �We have also gone through the judgment of this 
Court in the case of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
(ibid) cited by the learned Additional Advocate General, 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and find that the same directly deals 
with the question of appointment/promotion against the 
posts of RMS. It has clearly and categorically been held by 
this Court in the said judgment that determination of 
eligibility criteria, etc is essentially an administrative matter 
falling within the 'exclusive domain and policy decision 
making of the Government (as in this case) and interference 
with such matters by the Courts is not warranted. In this 
context, it has been held as follows: 
"It is a settled proposition of law that the Government 
is entitled to make rules in the interest of expediency of 
service and to remove anomalies in Service Rules. It is the 
Service Rules Committee which has to determine the 
eligibility criteria of promotion and it is essentially an 
administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain 
and policy decision making of the Government and the 
interference with such matters by the Courts is not 
warranted and that no vested right of a Government 
employee is involved in the matter of promotion or the rules 
determining their eligibility or fitness, and the High Court has 
no jurisdiction by means of writ to strike it down." 
Further, in the case of Central Board of Revenue,  
Government of Pakistan v. A.saci Ahmed Khan  ,f PLD 1. GO SC 
8i) it was held as follows: 
Fall'EEME211EiliaTZIET2g2E51101iiitz'':11:1',6.1:L 121fLitilf:2:72.9.1.:Eftiiffli7..::iI'!-: 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.712 awl 713 O1,2020 
"In the circumstances it cannot be said that any rights 
of the petitioners were infringed, which they could enforce by 
a writ petition. The Government has every right to make rules 
to raise the efficiency of the services, and if no vested right is 
denied to a party, the High Court had no jurisdiction to 
interfere by means of a writ." 
12. �Admittedly, the Respondents do not constitute 
ministerial staff and are also not borne on the cadre/strength 
of the Provincial Secretariat. These were two additional 
reasons why the Respondents could not claim the benefit of 
Rules, 2007 and the criteria laid down for PMS (BS-17) quota 
posts reserved for a specific class of Government employees. 
In the circumstance, we find that the learned High Court has 
failed to appreciate and correctly interpret the relevant Rules 
on the subject and passed the impugned judgment in a 
slipshod manner, which is not sustainable and is liable to be 
set aside. 
1.3. �For reasons recorded above, we allow these 
appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 22.02.2018. 
3)4 � (1:5— 
Isla:N.1'4AB  A D 
0i.932021 . 
94,.5t Approved For .1.I..elborting' 
RIIIRENIIMigligilliNIREBIlliiiillilillEilEIMIllifillMITilningREIPHIENEABEIIPTIIIIIIIITIETEM �
LifERERNERNIIIIIETIPINMEELEDE1111111111ENNIIIPPET5112:!=...L 
