| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4027 2025 SLD 4027 = 2025 PLC 136 |
Constitution Petition No.D-74 of 2024, decided on 7th May, 2024.
Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, JJ
Petitioner in person. Ali Raza Baloch, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2024
TARIQUE MUBEEN
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Government of Sindh and 3 others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---
----R.12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Appointment---Age limit---Policy decision---Judicial review---Scope---Delay in advertising vacancies and conducting examination---Crossing of upper age limit---Petitioner sought relaxation in upper age limit on the pretext that in other province relaxation in upper age limit was granted, however, the petitioner was left in lurch---Validity---Government of Sindh could relax the age of the petitioner, which had been categorically denied to the candidates appearing through combined competitive examination, thus, High Court could not substitute its view as the law on the subject was very clear, as such relaxation could be made applicable in the upper age limit to the applicants applying for the vacancies in all the departments in Government of Sindh except Police Service and the posts to be filled through combined competitive examination by the Sindh Public Service Commission---No design or ill-will was found behind belated advertisement of vacancies and holding of examination, thus, High Court declined to interference with the action of the Sindh Public Service Commission, as the issue of age relaxation laid with the Government of Sindh and for that purpose they had already issued the notification, which was a policy decision supported by the R.12(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---High Court while exercising the powers of judicial review cannot substitute its own view for that of the policy makers unless of course it is shown to be arbitrary or an unreasonable policy decision.
Suo-motu case No. 18 of 2016 rel.