Just heard on a tv channel that the law of FPSC 1990 has been null n void by the court in karachi stating that 40% to pass written paper is diemissed.

ANY ONE CAN GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF ACT 1990 AND ABOUT TODAYS JUDGEMENT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON US OR ON FPSC RULES AND REGULATIONS!

iss ka faida , nuqsan kia ho ja?

es ka faida koi nai nazar ata as such butt nuksan ho sakta ha.. FPSC can raise its standard of syllabus and marking... and may change some rules after this judgement

__________________
*****************************
A good child is seen but not heard.
*****************************

@Axim
Source?

Duniya News Channel.

__________________
Best end of life is not knowledge but action.
Don't limit yourself to what you think people are expecting!

Do any body knows .what would be its impact .either it would be beneficent or will bring tough time to css aspirants. Explain?

I have seen on ARY NEWS... i guess between 1:30pm - 1:45pm today!
It was a breaking new on ARY n stayed for 2-3 min only!

__________________
*****************************
A good child is seen but not heard.
*****************************

Guyz,

What this law is about? Care to explain?

Thanks

KARACHI, Oct 19: The Sindh High Court on Tuesday struck down a rule of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2008, framed by the Federal Public Service Commission of Pakistan (FPSC) requiring the candidates belonging to the rural parts of the province to obtain at least 50 per cent aggregate marks for appointment.

Ghulam Shabbir Jaskani, Shahnaz Zardari and 10 others, who were declared failed in the FPSC examination in 2008, had assailed the Rule 11 (i) which said that a candidate who failed to secure 50 per cent marks in the aggregate would be considered to have failed and would not be eligible for appointment.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Malik Naeem Iqbal, prayed to the court to declare the FPSC rule illegal and ultra vires of Articles 4, 25, 27, and 37 of the constitution. They also prayed for their appointment if qualified in further examination.

Their counsel contended that the petitioners were poor citizens belonging to various districts of Sindh and obtained education in very difficult circumstances with very limited resources.

Advocate Naeem Iqbal submitted that the petitioners passed all subjects, yet they marginally could not meet the minimum requirement of 50 per cent marks in the aggregate, and consequently they were not called for viva-voce.

He argued that the state was under obligation to promote higher education among the people of backward areas and simultaneously to accommodate the interests of socially or economically disadvantaged sections of the people.

The counsel submitted that a number of seats allocated to Sindh remained unfilled/ vacant for three years and these were allocated to other provinces. He said that the condition of obtaining 50 per cent aggregate marks was obstructing the candidates of Sindh, who were at a disadvantageous position due to paucity of resources and facilities to compete with the candidates from developed areas with innumerable resources and facilities to educate themselves.

Resultantly, he said, the province was not getting representation in posts of the federal government in accordance with its share.

Advocate Naeem Iqbal contended that application of rule of aggregate to the candidates from less privileged areas was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to Article 37 of the constitution.

The counsel submitted that Sindh’s share in the federal civil service was 19 per cent that was sub-allocated in the ratio of 60 per cent for rural areas and 40 per for urban areas. He contended that the petitioners belonged to remote areas and due to lack of proper guidance and low standards of education they might not be able to compete with the candidates of other provinces and area.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Justice Abdul Hadi Khoso had reserved the judgment after hearing the arguments of Advocate Naeem Iqbal and Deputy Attorney General Mian Khan Malik.

The court in its order observed that the statement filed on behalf of the respondents regarding the seats allocated, filled and unfilled from 1990 to 2008 showed that the allocated quota of Sindh had been going un-availed for the last many years for want of candidates qualifying 50 per cent aggregate marks for further examination.

The court order said: “Hence it appears that Rule 11(i) of the Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 negates the quota allocated to Sindh Province and is in direct conflict with Articles 27 and 37 (a) of the Constitution, 1973.”

The court also opined that Rule 11(i) of the FPSC Rules, 2008 could not override the provisions of Article 27.

The court observed: “For the foregoing reasons in our view the quota reserved for the citizens of backward and less developed areas could not be allowed to be reduced, and the allocated seats for the candidates of particular area remain unfilled, which would create a sense of deprivation among the citizens of Pakistan belonging to Sindh province.”

Consequently, the court observed the rule was ultra vires of the constitution and struck it down.

The court also directed the respondent FPSC and federal government to allow the petitioners to appear in examination for their final selection.

By Tahir Siddiqui
Wednesday, 20 Oct, 2010
Link

what will be its pros n cons?

__________________
"It's not that some people have willpower and some don't. It's that some people are ready to change and others are not." James Gordon