| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 638 = 1990 MLD 1475 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1053 of 1990, decided on 9th April, 1990.
Presented By: Before Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J
Agha Taj Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A. G. for
Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 1053 of 1990, decided on 9th April, 1990.
Presented By: Before Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J
Agha Taj Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A. G. for
Respondent.
IJAZ AKHTAR--Petitioner
VERSUS
THE SECRETARY, PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION--Respondent
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964--- ----Rr. 2 (iii), 3 (vi) & 6---Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976---Words "maximum upper age limit prescribed in the Service/Recruitment Rules" in R3(vi) of Rules of 1964---Candidate, a Government servant as well as a "disabled person", his "prescribed" age has to be determined under R.6 of 1964 Rules while relaxation is governed by Rules of 1976 (as amended). It is clear from the clause (i) and proviso (iii) of R.6, West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Breach) Rules, 1964 that prescribed age limit by initial recruitment is 28 years while for the Government servant with four years service it is 35 years. The petitioner is admittedly a Government servant, who has more than 4 years service to his credit, therefore, in his case prescribed upper age will be 35 years and not 28 years. He is entitled to relaxation of 10 years in view of the clear provisions of amended Rules of 1976 as to `disabled persons'. This way the petitioner will not be having double relaxation because as a Government servant he is not claiming any relaxation under the Rules of 1976. It is in fact the prescribed upper age limit for the candidates appearing from second category i.e. Government servants, with four years of service. The confusion may be due to overlapping of the provisions of Rules 1964 and Rules of 1976. The proviso (i) of Rules of 1964 relating to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and under developed areas was valid only for 10 years. This proviso became a dead letter on 9-12-1974. This necessitated promulgation of Rules of 1976. The same covered cases of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and under-developed areas and another category of disabled persons was added, in March, 1989. The other provisos (ii) and (iii) to Rule 6 of Rules of 1964 remained intact and part and parcel of the Rules of 1964. Therefore, the `prescribed' age of a candidate is to be determined under Rule 6 of Rules, 1964 while the relaxation is governed by Rules, 1976 as amended. Beneficial legislation is to be interpreted benevolently as…