Law:

Section:

REMARKS

Likewise, general rule making powers of government deriving their force and validity from section 22 of the Act are available with the government but for carrying out the purposes of the Act and not to destroy the same. Besides, it is noted that sub-section 3 of section 9 of the Act was specific provision providing qualification for the office in question with particularity and thus cannot be controlled by general provision empowering government to frame rules. It is by now a settled principle of law that general provisions in a statute do not control specific provisions and so general rule making powers provided under section 22 would not control and affect upon specific provisions of section 9(3) of the Act. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgments of Superior Court in the case \"A. Qutubuddin Khan vs. CHEC Millwala Dredging Co. (Pvt.) Limited\" reported in 2014 SCMR 1268, \"Golden Oraphies (Pvt.) Ltd. And 12 others vs. Director of Vigilance, Central Excise, Customs and Sales Tax and others\" reported in 1993 SCMR 1635 and \"Al-Jehad Trust through Raeesul- Mujahidin Habib Al-Wahabul Khairi, Advocate Supreme Court and another vs. Federation of Pakistan and others\" reported as PLD 1997 Supreme Court 84.
In addition thereto, it also noted that advertisement for the post in question was made in September 2020, whereas the Rules relied upon by the respondents for ousting the petitioner from the run have been framed and notified on 17.04.2024. And so in that context too, these rules cannot apply to already concluded recruitment processes. Reliance m this regard is placed on the judgments of Superior Court m the case \"Controller General of Accounts, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others vs. Abdul Waheed and others reported in 2023 SCMR 111, \"Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore through Chairman and others vs. Haji Abdul Aziz and others\" reported in 2012 SCMR 965, \"Sindh Revenue Board through Secretary Government of Sindh vs. Messrs Quick Food Industries (Pvt.) Limited and others\" reported in 2023 SCMR 1776 and \"Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority vs. Pakistan Broadcasters Association and others\" reported in PLD 2023 Supreme Court 378.

Summary:Qualification dispute
The petitioner challenged the refusal of his appointment as Member (Hydropower) PEDO on the grounds that new rules requiring a 1st Class Bachelor Degree in Electrical Engineering were applied retroactively. The court held that the qualification was already exhaustively provided in Section 9(3) of the Pakhtunkhwa Energy Development Organization Act, 2020, and that subordinate rules (framed under Section 22) could not override it. Since the advertisement was issued before the 2024 rules, those rules could not be applied to this recruitment. The court directed immediate appointment of the petitioner.