Case Summary & Legal Holding

This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between ATTIQUE ZAIDI and INSPECTOR GENERAL PUNJAB POLICEHonorable Justice Ibad-ur-Rehman LodhiRaja Ikram Ameen Minhas, officially reported as 2017 PLC(CS)N 52. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2017 P L C (C.S.) Note 52 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)] Before Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J ATTIQUE ZAIDI and 6 others Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL PUNJAB POLICE and 3 others Writ Petition No.1945 of 2015, decided on 3rd September, 2015. Police Rules (1934)--- ----Rr. 10.64 & 12.16 & Form No.10.64--- Circular No.SO(H&D)1-7/65 dated 14-09-1965---Appointment as constable in police department---Colour blindness and squint problem---Candidate not considered to be appointed in police department---Word 'sight'---Scope--Petitioners after having been declared successful in written test were referred for their medical examination---Medical authorities found the petitioners as colour blind and having squint problems in their eyes---Petitioners were discarded from being considered to be appointed as constable in police department--Validity---Petitioners suffered from such conditions which were not originally made applicable for persons to be appointed as constable in police department---Medical authorities were not required to adjudge the candidates for appointment as constable in police department---Word 'sight' did not include the capability of a person to differentiate different colours---Person having squint problems in his eyes could not be termed as a person having no eyesight or less eyesight---Medical authorities could not enter into minute details of eyesight rather were required to determine the presence of any disease, constitutional affection or bodily infirmity---Only such infirmity which must be a disqualification for a candidate was to be indicated---Medical authorities had not certified whether such defects if existed would lead to bodily infirmity or constitutional affection---Medical authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction in circumstances---Impugned action on the part of medical authorities was of no legal effect---Police department was directed to provide the petitioners job of police constables with immediate effect---If any of the petitioners had crossed age limit on account of unauthorized acts of department then over age limit be relaxed and candidates be considered as valid candidates for appointment---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. [Paras. 10, 12, 13, 15 & 16 of the judgment] Raja Ikram Ameen Minhas for Petitioners. Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, Additional Advocate General Punjab. Dr. Irfan Khilji, DMS District Headquarter Hospital, Rawalpindi. Muhammad Ameer Abdullah, S.P. Headquarters, Rawalpindi. Ahsan Abbas Kazmi SI, Legal Branch, CPO Office, Rawalpindi. ORDER IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- The petitioners were amongst those, who applied for their appointments as police constables in B.P.S.5 in Police Department, Punjab in the year 2014. They were required to appear in the test arranged by the National Testing Service. The result of their written test was communicated to the Inspector General, Punjab Police, Lahore and the petitioners were declared successful in such written test. They also undergone the process of interview and thereafter, on completion of necessary formalities i.e. verification of character antecedents and academic qualifications, they were referred to the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Rawalpindi for their medical examination. 2. On the basis of the opinion of medical authorities who found some of the petitioners as colour blind and some having squint problems in their eyes, reported to the Police Department, the petitioners were discarded from being considered to be appointed as constables in Police Department, Punjab. 3. The petitioners have challenged the steps taken by the medical authorities in rendering the petitioners unfit for appointment as constables and their having not been considered for appointment by the Police Department for the just reason of such medical opinion, on the plea that the medical authorities in fact exceeded to their jurisdiction vested in them for the purposes of taking medical examination of the persons desirous to get appointment of constables in Police Department and as such, discarding the petitioners by Police Department to be considered for such appointment on the strength of such medical report was an act, which is without lawful authority and having no legal effect. 4. In written report and comments furnished by respondent No.3-City Police Officer, Rawalpindi, after reiteration the above narrated facts, it was disclosed that when basis for medical opinion was sought for from the medical authorities, they have made a reference to some instructions issued on 14.09.1965 providing a standard for vision test for the first entry into the Government service (Police Department). 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record along with the report and parawise comments. 6. Copy of the Circular No.SO(H&D)l-7/65, dated 14.09.1965 indicates that the then Governor of West Pakistan provided a revised standard of vision test for the first entry into the Government service containing such standard for Police Department also by means of clause 6(ii) which reads as under:- "Distant Vision 6/9 in each eye without glasses. Near vision as in Civil Service. They should have good muscle-balance, visual fields and colour vision, night vision and binocular vision." 7. The affairs in Police Department, Punjab are being regulated by the Police Rules, 1934. Rule 10.64 provides that a medical certificate of health is required in support of the first claim made for the pay of a person substantively appointed to a permanent post in Government service. Such certificate shall in all cases of appointment in Police Department be in Form No.10.64 and shall be signed by the District Health Officer of the District in which appointment is made whereas rule 12.16 of the same Rules provides that every recruit shall, before enrollment, be medically examined and certified physically fit for service by the Civil Surgeon. 8. A certificate, in the prescribed form (10.64), signed by the Civil Surgeon personally, is an essential requirement for enrolment. Such rule further provides that the examination by the Civil Surgeon will consist upon test of eye sight, speech and hearing of the candidate, his freedom from physical defects, organic contagious disease, or any other defect or tendency likely to render him unfit, and his age. Such rule further provides that candidates shall be rejected for any disease or defect, which is likely to render them unfit in the full duties of a police officer. 9. The advertisement originally made inviting the applications from the candidates for their appointments as police constables indicated that the candidates will be adjudged as to their mental and physical competence and they should be medically healthy persons. 10. Keeping in view such criteria, when the petitioners were tested and declared either as colour blind or having squint problems in their eyes, were thus sufferers from such conditions as were not originally made applicable for persons to be appointed as constables in the Police Department. 11. Both under rules 10.64 and 12.16, a certificate from the medical authorities is required as provided in Form No.10.64 of Police Rules, 1934. For ready reference and convenience, such form is reproduced herein below:- "FORM No.10.64. Police Department _______ Dated CERTIFICATE I do hereby certify that I have examined__________, a candidate for employment in the Police Department, and cannot discover that he has any disease constitutional affection, or bodily infirmity, except --- I do not consider this a disqualification for employment in the office of_________ His age is according to his own statement _____years, and by appearance about ______years. Dated _______ District Health Officer" 12. The original conditions, which were announced in the initial advertisement inviting applications from the suitable candidates and Form No.10.64 as reproduced herein above do indicate that the medical authorities were not required to adjudge the candidates for the appointment of police constables as to their colour blindness or squint problems. What in fact was required is the "eye sight" and keeping in view the Dictionary meaning of "sight", the same does not include the capability of a person to differentiate different colours and further that a person having squint problems to some extent in his eyes, cannot be termed as a person having no eyesight or less eyesight. 13. Even otherwise, the certificate in Form No.10.64 never require the health authority to enter into some minute details of eyesight. What in fact was required from such health authority, is presence of any disease, constitutional affection or bodily infirmity. Only such infirmity, which must be a disqualification for a candidate is to be indicated. Although with reference to the petitioners; colour blindness to some extent or squint problem was indicated by the health authorities but it was never certified that such defects if exists would lead to bodily infirmity or constitutional affection, as such, the findings of the medical authorities indicating some disqualifications with the petitioners for their appointments as police constables is not only violative to the standards even provided for the health authorities but also a result of exceeding the jurisdiction vested in the medical authorities, who are strictly required to provide report as provided in Form No.10.64. 14. I have been told by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during whole of this cumbersome process, most of the candidates have crossed their age limits as provided for first entry into the service of the Police Department and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are required to be dealt with sympathetically. 15. For what has been discussed above, it is held that by indicating some sort of colour blindness or squint problems in the petitioners, the medical authorities in fact exceeded to their jurisdiction provided to them by the Health Department and also the Police Rules, and as such, the act on the part of Police Department in disqualifying the petitioners from their appointments as police constables in Punjab Police Department, are acts, which are without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and the same are declared as such, with a further direction to the respondents to provide the petitioners, the job of police constables in Police Department with immediate effect. 16. Since the petitioners, when entered into process of appointment in question were having the prescribed age limits but on account of unauthorized acts of the respondents, some of them have crossed their age limits, therefore, it is directed that over age limit in relevant cases is relaxed and it is directed that they be considered as valid candidates for such appointments irrespective of their having been crossed the age limit. 17. This constitutional petition is allowed. ZC/A-147/L Petition allowed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

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