SHOUKAT ALI versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY
Section 3, 7 (3) (d) and C Competitive Exam Rules, 2007, RR 7 (ii), C, Section 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 for the designation of Group Appeal Appellant (BS 17). I attended. And qualified in merit No. 143, the appellant submitted his order of preference for the professional group. The appellant's case was that he was fit for service and preferred to be allocated to Pakistan's foreign service, but instead the income tax group was ignored. Under the order of his priority list for the professional group, the appellant claimed that Pakistan's Foreign Service seat was allotted to another candidate whose merit number was 145 and the applicant's overall score was 793, when That the other candidate filed 791 representations was rejected by the Appellant by the Federal Service Commission and the request for a review was also rejected by Section 3 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977. Before any decision of the Public Service Commission can be filed, under the relevant High Court R13, Competitive Examination Rules 2007, the appellant does not claim as a matter of right to allocate to a particular group of service. However, it was specifically mentioned that the candidate would be selected from the selection given in Form Rule 15 of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2007, as decided by the High Power Board in relation to group / service allocation. Had clearly withheld the jurisdiction of the courts to examine the matter, which was the task. The board, which had to consider a number of psychological tests, health-related factors, adaptivity tests, etc., and the legislature was unaware that
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
