Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1993 P L C (C

1993 P L C (C.S.) 1371

[Lahore High Court]

Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J

MUHAMMAD ALI

Versus

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE and another

W.P. No.4315 of 1993, heard on 11th May, 1993.

Police Rules, 1934‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑R. 13.20‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Relaxation of upper age limit twice obtained by petitioner (Constable) to appear in Category `B' examination but he could not pass that examination‑‑‑Petitioner concealing such fact obtaining order of relaxation in age for the third time but was not allowed to appear in Category `B' examination‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Authority although had moved appropriate Authority for withdrawal of its order relating to relaxation of age limits yet at present such order having not been withdrawn would hold the field‑‑‑No justification for respondents to refuse to give effect to the order in question, and deny permission to petitioner to take departmental examination‑‑‑Respondents were directed to allow petitioner to appear in Category `B' examination‑‑‑Such order, however, would not be construed as preventing respondents from withdrawing order in question, (relating to relaxation of age) and taking any consequent action against petitioner.

Sahibzada Riaz Anwar for Petitioner.

Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A.‑G. (Punjab) for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th May, 1993.

JUDGMENT

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by Muhammad Ali, petitioner herein, who is presently working as a constable in the employment of the Punjab Police. Under the relevant rules, he is required to pass two departmental examinations namely Category A and B before he can be considered for promotion as Head Constable. The petitioner has already passed Category A examination. His grievance is that he is not being allowed to take Category B examination by the respondents for the reason that he is over‑age.

2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on an application filed by the petitioner, the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, vide his order dated 30th January, 1993, relaxed the upper age limit and, therefore, the refusal of respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the Category B examination only on the ground of his being over‑age is wholly without lawful authority.

3. Rana Muhammad Arshad, learned Additional Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the respondents admits that an order relaxing the upper age limit was passed by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, on 30th January, 1993, but he states that the order was obtained by the petitioner by concealing the material facts inasmuch as, according to the instructions applicable, if the person had twice obtained condonation of age, he is not entitled to have the same for third time. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner had applied for condonation of age for the third time concealing the fact that previously also on two occasions he has availed of this benefit. It is also pointed out that Additional Inspector‑General of Police has been moved to withdraw his order, which matter is pending before him.

4. From the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate‑General, it is evident that at present the order passed by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, relaxing the upper age limit on 30th January, 1993 holds the field. If that be so, there appears td be no justification for the respondents to refuse to give effect to the aforesaid order and deny permission to the petitioner to take the departmental examination. However, if at subsequent stage, the order, dated 30th January, 1993 is recalled, the position might be different.

In view of what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to appear in Category B examination.

This order shall, not, however, be construed as preventing the respondents from withdrawing the order, dated 30th January, 1993 and taking any consequent action.

There shall be no order as to costs.

AA/M‑1049/L Petition accepted.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant