Law: Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977

Section: XLV,3,7,10

Law: CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019

Section: 7

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199,242

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

(a)    Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977)--- ----Ss.3, 7 & 10---CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019, R.7---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 242---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11--Constitutional petition challenging vires of rules---Maintainability---Vires of rules already upheld by Supreme Court---Res judicata---Applicability--Constitutional petition was hit by res judicata since Supreme Court had already upheld the vires of rules---Brief facts were that the petitioner filed a Constitutional petition seeking declarations that the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 were ultra vires the Constitution and R.7 in particular was unconstitutional, and that the Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) lacked authority to unilaterally frame such rules, which should instead be made by the FPSC as a whole with approval of the federal government---The legal issue before the Court was whether the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019, and in particular R.7, were unconstitutional on the ground that they were framed by the Chairman alone rather than by the full Commission acting under its statutory authority ?---Held: Pursuant to Art.242, the FPSC Ordinance, 1977, was promulgated, S.3 of which defined the composition of the commission, while S.7 enumerated its functions---These provisions, inter alia, authorized the commission to conduct examinations, advise the President on recruitment policies, and hold promotional examinations as to be specified by the federal government and in light of the said provisions, CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 were framed---The report furnished by the commission further revealed that the vires and validity of the CSS Competitive Examination Rules, 2019 had already been subjected to judicial scrutiny before the Supreme Court, as well as before the High Courts and on each occasion, the Rules were upheld as having been lawfully framed and duly approved by the federal government---In the presence of such authoritative pronouncements, the matter could not be re-agitated merely by altering the form of the relief sought--Grievance raised by the petitioner was…