' MATJLVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This I.C.A. Proceeds against the judgment dated 21-9-2005 whereby W.P. No,2446 of 2005 filed by the appellant had been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment fails to take notice of the pleadings on record which do not at all reflect a controversy as to the applicability of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that the appellant was not eligible for appointment under the said Rule.
3. We have gone through the file. According to the contents of the writ petition, while employed as a Sub Inspector in the respondent-Market Committee, the father of the appellant died on 16-5- 1994. Thereafter, he stated that he has passed his Matriculation Examination and filed an application for appointment as a Supervisor under the aforesaid rule. Some correspondence took place and thereafter the proceedings stopped. Then, he referred to several letters (Annex: J, K and L) which contained interpretation of the said Rule by the Provincial Government as also the Director of Agriculture (Economics and Marketing), Punjab, Lahore. This latter letter is Annex: 'K'. He accordingly prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him in accordance with the said Rule.
4. Now vide order dated 4-5-2005, comments were called for and these were filed. We have examined the said comments and we find that there is no denial that the said rule is not applicable to the employees of the respondents. On the other hand, the plea taken was that since the sufficient funds were not available to afford a post applied for, the appellant was advised to apply in Market Committee, Multan, where his father had worked for a number of years. It was also stated that he is not eligible for appointment having crossed the maximum age.
5. Having, thus, examined the records, we find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that no such controversy was there whereas the writ petition stands dismissed on the sole ground that the said Rule is not applicable. Apart from the said records, upon a plain reading of the Rule 70(6) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979, framed under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978, read with the said Annexure 'K', we are convinced that the said Rule does apply to the employees of the respondents.
6. The I.C.A. Is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The result would be that Writ Petition No,2446/05 filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided afresh by a learned Single Judge of this Court, No orders as to costs.