' SALIM KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Ibrar Khan, petitioner of Writ Petition No,86 of 2006, Muhammad Nawaz petitioner of Writ Petition No,142 of 2006, Akbar Mansoor petitioner of Writ Petition No,38 of 2006, and Abdul Hanan of Writ Petition No,39 of 2006 contended, through their respective writ petitions, that they were Patwari apprentices/trainees with the Patwaris named in their petitions and they were eligible to be trained in the Patwar Training School and were eligible to be allowed to take examination of Patwari. Muhammad Nawaz requested that the age for the training and examination declared as 25 years in his case be declared not applicable to him. Each of them also submitted an application for temporary relief. The numbers of those Civil Miscellaneous are 128 of 2006, 129 of 2006, 130 of 2006 and 131 of 2006, respectively.
2. It was contended through the comments of District Officer Revenue and Estate/Collector Mansehra and the Senior Member Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., as well as the Director Land Records, N.-W.F.P. That the upper age limit for the candidates was 25 years, and only the candidates already in service as Patwaris were eligible for training/ examination as mentioned above beyond the age of 25 years. It was further contended that the petitioners were not eligible for such training and they were not recommended and approved for the training in question in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to contents of Part-II of Chapter III of the Land Record Manual which relate to the Patwaris and submitted that, though the petitioners were trainees with the Patwaris but, as the register of Patwar candidates was not available, their names were not entered in the said register, in spite of the fact that certificates have been issued by the concerned Patwaris in favour of the petitioners. The learned D.A.-G., however, argued that the petitioners are unable to show that they had ever made applications for the entry of their names in the said register and a copy of such an application has never been brought on record by the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to rule 3.10 occurring in Part-III of Chapter III mentioned above and submitted that the accepted persons, whose names appeared in the register of Patwar candidates, and the unaccepted candidates, whose names were not available in such register and who were not such accepted candidates, could also be allowed to join Patwar School with the permission of Director Land Records, though they were to be required to pay both tuition fee and examination fee, while the accepted Patwaris were to pay the examination fee only.
It was further contended that a person who possesses Patwar experience of 5 years or more, on the recommendation of the Director, be exempted, in exceptional cases, by the Board of Revenue, from attending a Patwar School before admission to the examination. He argued that the petitioners had Patwar experience of more than 5 years and they should 'Jaye been exempted by the Board of Revenue from attending the Patwar School before admission to the examination at this stage.
5. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and of the learned D.A.-G. In detail and perused the record.
6. The petitioner have been unable to show that they were enlisted candidates/accepted candidates and their names appeared in the register for Patwari candidates. They may have certificates from certain Patwaris but they do not have any document to the effect that they had submitted applications for the entry of their names in the register and their names appeared/entered in such a list.. As such, they do not fall in the category of accepted candidates.
The petitioners are not officially appointed/ employed Patwaris, and therefore, are not entitled to the concessions available to the Patwaris who are already in active service of the Government.
6-A. The age limit of 25 years was prescribed for permission to attend the training school and it was acted upon by the Government. The learned D.A.-G. Explained that a summary was moved by the Board of Revenue in which the request for relaxation of the age limit for certain persons was mentioned, but it was declared as Government policy on that summary that age of 25 years was not to be relaxed/extended in any case, in order to avoid bad precedents. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the age limit was not advertised, that the law regarding the same had been deleted, and the policy regarding the age limit was not a substitute for the rules. He further contended that the change regarding the age limit during the pendency of the proceedings of submission of applications for admission in the training school and their further processing could not change old position, and the old law was to continue in spite of new policy. The learned D.A.-G. Responded that the policy was not a new one, rather the old policy was kept in tact, and the same rule practice and policy were in vogue before the start of process of submission of applications for training during the said process and even, after completion of the said process.
The learned D.A.-G. Further argued that it was not always necessary to advertise each bit and piece of rules regarding certain matter again and again, when once these were properly advertised, and it was the responsibility of the candidates to know about such advertised rules, regulations, policy matters and practices before submission of application.
6-B. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners had 5 years or more experience as Patwari candidates, and such candidates could be exempted from training in the Patwar School before appearance in the examination. He contended that the present petitioners were eligible for such exemption, and should be exempted from training and be allowed to appear for the examination. The rule regarding the exemption itself clearly shows that such exemption is to be granted in special cases and it is the judicial discretion of the Director Land Records to recommend such persons and the Board of Revenue may grant special exemption. The petitioners could not show any specialty of their case and could not show that they were entitled to any special treatment.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the D.L.R. Was to consider each case on its merits, that the petitioners were recommended by the Local Authorities and that special concession/ exemption should have been granted to the present petitioners. It is the authority of the D.L.R. To grant special permission, for training and it is the authority of the Board of Revenue to grant special concession for the purposes of examination. It is never the right of an applicant to get such special concession/relaxation/exemption. Generally, such concessions/ relaxations/exemptions are not granted when other candidates, who do not 'need such concessions/relaxations/ exemptions, are available, otherwise the grant of such concessions etc. Is likely to fall in the category of undue and unfair favours.
8. In the circumstances of this case, we do not find any speciality in the case of the petitioners for special permission/ exemption from passing through the training course before examination. The petitioners were not accepted candidates as their names did not appear in the register of Patwari candidates and the petitioners were not the inservice Patwaris of the Government. They fell under the category of unaccepted candidates. It was the discretion of the Director Land Records to either allow or refuse admission to the petitioners to the Patwar Training School, and such permission could not be refused when the accepted candidates and the' inservice Patwaris were available for training according to the seats reserved for the course.
9. Finding no merit in the present writ petitions, we dismiss the same along with C.Ms. Mentioned above.
' Announced.