' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This judgment shall dispose of 13 Writ Petitions Nos.4635 of 2006, 3833 of 2006, 4186 of 2006, 3962 of 2006, 3560 of 2006, 1734 of 2006, 3242 of 2006, 4544 of 2006, 802 of 2006, 788 of 2006, 712 of 2006, 660 of 2006, 787 of 2006, 3181 of 2006 and 395 of 2006 in which the learned counsel who assisted the Court are, Ch. Shahid Tabassam, Advocate, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, Advocate, Ch. Fawad Hussain, Advocate and Mr. Muhammad Sohail Bhatti, Advocate. These petitions raise a common grievance against the impugned Standing Order No,2, dated 29-9-2005 issued by respondent No,1, Provincial Police Officer (Inspector-General of Police) specifying the conditions of eligibility of serving constables and head constables in the police for competing in the selection of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police ("A.S.-Is."). The impugned standing order is issued pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Police Order, 2002 ("Police Order"). That statutory provision envisages the appointment of A.S.-Is. In the police force through selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission in the following terms:-- "(7) Constitution of Police.-
(3) The recruitment in the police other than ministerial and specialist cadres shall be in the rank of Constable, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Assistant Superintendent of Police: ' Provided that selection for direct recruitment in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector shall be through the appropriate Public Service Commission and shall not exceed twenty-five per cent of total posts in that rank: ' Provided further that 25% of the quota for departmental promotions to the rank of Assistant Sub- Inspector shall be filled, subject to rules, through selection by the appropriate Public Service Commission from graduate Constables or Head Constables of clean record."
2. The petitioners are graduate police constables, who are disqualified to joint the contest for the post of A.S.-Is. For exceeding the maximum age of candidates prescribed by the impugned standing order. Their learned counsel attacks the impugned standing order for going beyond the terms of Article 7(3) of the Police Order by fixing an upper age limit of 33 years for candidates competing for departmental promotion; whereas the Police Order does not lay down any upper age limit for in-service candidates. In fact, the Punjab Civil Servants (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit)
Rules, 1976 ("Rules") are permissive in this context, with Rule 3(v) thereof providing as follows:--
(v) In the case of a candidates already working as a Government servant, the period of his continuous service as such shall for the purpose of upper age limit prescribed under any service rules, of the post for which he is a candidate, be excluded from his age.
3. He contends that a working Government servant who is a candidate for a post to be filled through recruitment is entitled under Rule 3(v), supra to the exclusion of the period of his continuous service for the purpose of determining the upper age limit in his case. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Muhammad Qasim and 6 others v. Home Department, Government of the Punjab (2004 PLC (C.S.) 69). In that case a learned Single Judge of this Court, applied the Rules to the selection process for A.S.-Is., as presently, to exclude the period of continuous service of the in- service candidates from the upper age limit otherwise applied to their candidature by the selectors. Learned counsel presently seeks the same extent of relief for the petitioners who are more than 33 years old.
4. In answer to this petition the parawise comments filed by the respondent No,1 justify the maximum age of 33 years prescribed in the impugned standing order on the ground of policy to recruit "young and energetic trained/recruit courses qualified members of disciplined force as A.S.Is. Only young blood can combat crime in a courageous and daring manner." It is added that the impugned standing order already grants relaxation of 8 years over the maximum age for recruitment as constables. This extension is sufficient to accommodate graduate aspirants for promotion by selection as AS.-Is. The learned A.A.-G. Has therefore, argued that the Rules do not apply on policy considerations that are both reasonable and fair so that the impugned standing order issued under the Police Order is immune from attack. The foregoing contentions of the learned A.A.-G. Necessitate firstly, the determination whether the legal status of the impugned standing order justifies its claimed immunity and if not, whether its terms conform the standard set by the Rules.
5. The impugned standing order is neither approved by the Provincial Government nor notified in the official Gazette. Consequently, it does not have the status of rules conferred by Article 112 of the Police Order upon an instrument issued by the Provincial Police Officer having such attributes.
Therefore, the maxim of interpretation, generalia speciali bus non-derogant, special provision excludes the general provision, does not apply to exclude the Rules from governing the impugned standing order. That being so, the learned A.A.-G. Has tried to defend the impugned standing order under Article 10(3) of the Police Order which reads:-- "(10). Administration of the Police.-
(3) The police officers mentioned in clause (1) may for direction and control issue standing orders not inconsistent with the Order or rules made hereunder for the efficient functioning of the police."
6. A plain reading of the said provision shows that standing orders may be issued by the Provincial Police Officer, respondent No,1, for the direction and control of the police to promote its efficient functioning. The standing order contemplated in Article 10(3) is an administrative directive meant to control and regulate the functioning of the police. On the other hand, the impugned standing order is concerned with recruitment to and, therefore, the composition of the police. The disparate object of the impugned standing order in relation to the scope of Article 10(3) supra distinguishes the former. Moreover, any standing order issued by the respondent No,1 under the said Article can be no better than an executive order and must, therefore, yield to the legal requirements imposed by applicable statutory rules. In Muhammad Qasim's case (supra) the applicability of the Rules to the police service was examined and affirmed in the terms already mentioned. The relaxation of age up to 33 years for in-service candidates provided by the impugned standing order falls within the compass and subject-matter of the Rules. As the conditions of appointment to a post in the police service of the province is, inter alia, governed by the Rules, therefore, the impugned standing order must conform its requirements.
7. It is true that the Police Force, as contended by the learned A.A.-G., is distinguishable from other services of the Provincial Government. Police work, inter alia, involves law enforcement and crime control and its prevention. This work requires a high degree of physical fitness which is ordinarily an attribute of young age. Therefore, the prescription of an upper age limit for candidates to the post of A.S.-I., which includes both investigative and command field work, is both reasonable and fair; but at which level? By connecting the upper age limit with the continuous service of a candidate, the provisions of Rule 3(v) of the Rules, make the upper age limit variable and uncertain and, therefore, unsuitable to the exigencies of the present case. However, the foregoing reservation is addressed specifically by the provisos to Rule 3(v). The first of these provisos reads:-- "Provided the upper-age limit shall not exceed 35 years for recruitment to any post to be filled in on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission on the basis of the combined competitive examination/competitive examination."
8. The foregoing proviso is followed by a second proviso to Rule 3(v) wherein the upper age limit for in-service candidates is extended up to 40 years in case where the recruitment is to be done on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission ("P.P.S.C.") on the basis of a combined competitive examination. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that neither proviso applies in the present case because no competitive examination as contemplated therein is being held by the P.P.S.C. For recruitment from amongst in-service candidates. Resultantly, it is argued that Rule 3(v) supra should apply to the present case without the reservations recorded in either proviso.
9. The objection raised for the petitioners may have had substance if the selection process was departmentally conducted without reference to the P.P.S.C. Rule 3(v) supra is qualified by its provisos for cases where the selection for posts is to be done on the recommendation of the P.P.S.C.
The statutory intent to involve the P.P.S.C. In the selection process, therefore, brings the present case within the exceptions contemplated by the said provisos. Between the two provisos to Rule 3(v) supra, the second one is made applicable to cases where a combined competitive examination is held by the P.P.S.C. The Regulation No,34 of the P.P.S.C. Regulations, 2000 read with the P.P.S.C. Policy Decision No,15.2 explain that the combined competitive examination is held annually for appointments to Ex-cadre posts of the Provincial Civil Service. The post of A.S.-I. Does not fall in this category and the provincial government has not prescribed a combined competitive examination for the selection of A.S.Is from in-service candidates. Therefore, in the present case, the second proviso to Rule 3(v) cannot apply.
10. The express statutory mandate under Article 7(3) of the Police Order for departmental promotions of in-service candidates to the post of A.S.-Is. Is for selection to be made by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The express statutory choice for the selection process of the aforesaid post to be conducted by the P.P.S.C. Is because of the transparency and credibility of the P.P.S.C. To administer a competitive selection process fair. However, it transpires that the P.P.S.C. Is not taking a written examination of the in-service candidates in the present case but assessing them merely through interviews. This is explained in the parawise comments of the P.P.S.C. Filed in a connected Writ petition No,3181 of 2006. According to P.P.S.C. Regulation Nos.34 to 38 unless written examination is prescribed by the Provincial Government for selection to posts below BS.16, the P.P.S.C. May dispense a written examination as a short listing measure when the ratio of applicant to available posts is less than 5. The P.P.S.C. Has received 4118 applications against 1259 posts of A.S.-I.s in the province and have therefore, decided to assess candidates solely on the basis of interviews. Resultantly the lack of written examination is due to certain statistical criteria of the P.P.S.C. That is prima facie based on the presumption that dearth in competition may be overcome by relaxing standards. That may not necessarily be a fair approach to take in the present case.
Fixing an objective threshold of merit promotes competition and assures quality.
11. There is a significant difference when the P.P.S.C. 's involvement in the recruitment for public posts is by statutory intent and not merely by executive order. Under Rule 3 of the P.P.S.C. (Function)
Rules, 1978, the P.P.S.C. Must conduct tests and examination for recruitment of any post referred by the Chief Minister. In the present case, it is the statute that has made the reference to the P.P.S.C.
And, therefore, the competitive process of selection of A.S.-Is. Cannot be consigned to a metod of assessm ent dependent on human discretion that lacks verifiable objectivity. The hallmark of the P.P.S.C. Selection process lies in its objectivity to assess the competition for a post, from material that is duly reflected on record, assuring the verifiability of such evaluation.
12. At this point it is instructive to refer the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of appointment to public posts. In Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal and others v. The Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (1997 SCMR 1043), the following observation was made about the nature and quality of selection process for public posts:-- "it may be observed that even otherwise, the Constitutional requirement, inter alia, enshrined in Article 18 of the Constitution which enjoins that "Subject to such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business" includes the right of a citizen to compete and participate for appointment to a post in any Federal or a Provincial Government Department or an attached department or autonomous bodies/corporations etc. On the basis of open competition, which right he cannot exercise unless the process of appointment is transparent, fair, just and free from any complaint as to its transparency and fairness."
13. The provisions of Article 7(3) of the Police Order envisage the involvement of the P.P.S.C. In the selection process with the object to make that process transparent, competitive and, fair as also contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Each of the foregoing purposes is served when the selection process is objective in the assessment of merit of the candidates. The importance of a written examination for an objective assessment of merit cannot be underestimated. The Indian Supreme Court in Lila Dhar. v. State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1981. SC 1777) made the following observation in this behalf:-- "It is now well-recognized that while a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board, 0. Glenn Stahl in his Public Personnel Administration points out: "Any form of written test possesses certain administrative advantages over the oral and performance types. The written form is much easier and cheaper to administer. It can be given to a large number of individuals at the same time, thus conserving the time of the examiners. As a general rule it is easier to evaluate objectively, and the technical proficiency demanded in rating is 'usually, although not always, less.---The oral test has long served as a basic selection tool in private employment but has been more slowly accepted in the public field. This conservatism arises out of three considerations; (1) the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral tests, (2) the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test; and (3) public suspicion of the oral as a channel for the exertion of political influence through the destruction of anonymity.... The general principle is that resort should never be had to an oral if the relevant factors to be tested can be measured at some other point in the examining process. The reason is that the reliability of the oral, even under the best of conditions, tends to be lower than that of the well-designed written test. The oral test should be confined, then, to the evaluation of relevant traits which cannot be measured in any other way."
' In the United Nations Hand Book on Civil Service Laws and Practice it is said; " The written papers permit an assessment of culture and intellectual competence. The interview permits an assessm ent of qualities of character which written papers ignore; it attempts to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities".
14. To the mind of the Court a written examination is a necessary means of fair assessment of the merit of candidates for public posts. The resort to such a method of testing should not be left to depend on the statistical ratio between the number of applicants and the posts available. As noted in the quoted extract above an interview alone suffer from flaws like unreliability to test comprehensively, non-reviewability of performance and the risk of bias by the destruction of anonymity of candidates.
15. Accordingly, to meet the object of Article 7(3) of the Police Order and also the standard set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal case it is directed that the selection process of A.S.4s. By the P.P.S.C. From in-service candidates shall in the present instance also include the outcome of a written examination which shall be conducted competitively and fairly and be assessed objectively. Consequently under the applicable provisions of the first proviso to Rule 3(v) of the Rules, the upper age limit for in-service candidates to be assessed by the P.P.S.C. For the post of A.S.-I., is 35 years. Accordingly, the impugned standing order is insofar as it prescribes 33 years as the upper age limit for induction of in-service candidates is declared to be violative of the Rules and, therefore, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The selection process to be adopted by the P.P.S.C. In the instant case shall accordingly, proceed on the basis of inter alia, a written examination of all eligible in-service candidates subject to an upper age limit of 35 years.
16. In the result, therefore, the instant petition along with connected Writ Petitions No,4635 of 2006, 3833 of 2006, 4186 of 2006, 3962 of 2006, 3560 of 2006, 1734 of 2006, 3242 of 2006, 4544 of 2006, 802 of 2006, 788 of 2006, 712 of 2006, 660 of 2006, 787 of 2006 and 395 of 2006 are partly allowed to the extent of relaxation of the upper age limit to 35 years of in-service candidates. The Writ Petition No,3181 of 2006 which is filed, inter alia, to ensure that a written examination be also included as testing method for in-service candidates for the post of A.S.-I. Is allowed to such extent. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.