The petitioner was contender for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail. He is serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Accountability Court and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner since 7.11.2000. He applied for the post in question through proper channel which was duly forwarded to the Punjab public Service Commission. According to the public notice, the prescribed upper age limit was 25 years with five years general relaxation. His date of birth is 12.10.1971 and on the closing date i,e, 29.3.2004, he was 32 years 5 months and 18 days. His candidature was accordingly, rejected vide order dated 29.5.2004. He filed a representation to the Commission which did not evoke any response.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph (3)(b) of the Recruitment Policy of the Govt. of the Punjab, dated 5.5.2003, according to which "no relaxation of qualification, experience, physical criteria etc as provided in the relevant service rules shall be allowed, except as prescribed under the rules."
His contention is that according to Rule 3(V) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules 1976; the period of Govt. service rendered by the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk was required to be excluded while computing the, upper age limit for the post in question which rule, according to him, stands saved by the 'aforesaid Recruitment Policy. It is also maintained that in any case, statutory rules could, not be modified or superseded by executive instructions. Reliance is being placed on Muhammad Qasim and 6 others vs. Home Department, Govt. of the Punjab through Secretwy, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others (2004 P.L.C. (C.S.) 69).
3. Mr. Shahid Saleem, Section Officer of Home Department, submits that in accordance with the .Recruitment Policy, apart from the general relaxation of five years, no other relaxation could be granted to the petitioner. The representative of the Punjab Public Service Commission submits that the candidature of the petitioner was determined in accordance with the Govt. instructions.
4. The submissions made have been considered. Not only the 1976 Rules referred to above stand protected even by the Recruitment Policy aforesaid but also that a statutory rule could not be abrogated by an executive instruction. The question was considered by me in the case of C.
Muhammad Qasim and 6 others (supra) and the view taken was that the benefit of Rule 3(V) was available to a candidate in Govt. service. It was also held that the aforesaid rules was a beneficial dispensation and is to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance the remedy. It may also be observed that Rule 3(V) contemplates computation of upper age limit and not relaxation of upper age limit.
5. Accordingly, the rejection of petitioner's candidature is declared as without lawful authority and the Punjab Public Service Commission is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner by computing the E upper age limit in accordance with Rule 3(V) of the aforesaid 1976 Rules, of course, after satisfying itself as to the claim of the petitioner for continuous Govt. service from 7.11.2000.
6. Vide order dated 7.7.2004, the petitioner was allowed to take test/interview with a direction that his result shall not be declared. And, vide order dated 11.11.2004, it was directed that one post shall not be filled in. It is, therefore, directed that if after allowing the benefit of Rule 3(V) of the 1976, Rules, to the petitioner, he is found to be within the upper age limit, his result shall be declared. No order as to costs.
Disposed of.