' SHAUKAT UMAR PIRZADA, J.--- This writ petition is directed against the order of rejection of the petitioners' applications due to their overage.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioners are working as Primary School Teachers since 11-2-1997 in BPS-7. They were holding qualification of B.Sc./PTC at the time when the basic qualification for appointment as Primary School Teacher was Matric/PTC. Presently they are holding qualification of M.A./B.Ed. Petitioner No,1 is posted at Government High School Manwala while petitioner No,2 at Government Middle School, Darul Uloom Kabirwala. In response to the proclamation issued in the Daily "Nawa-e-Waqt" on 4-3-2010 whereby respondent No,2 invited applications for the posts of Senior Elementary School Teachers with qualification B.Sc. In Math, Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology for 146 posts vacant in different schools of District Khanewal, the petitioners applied through proper channel, but their applications were turned down on the ground of overage. In the said proclamation it was mentioned that the teachers having requisite qualification can also apply for the said post through proper channel. It has been averred that the age limit 21 years to 35 years has been mentioned in the proclamation for those candidates who were appearing first time and no age limit has been prescribed for the teachers already in service and for those who apply through proper channel. Therefore, the rejection of their applications is illegal and without lawful authority.
3. The report and parawise comments were called for from respondents Nos.1 to 5 which have been filed. The respondents have taken objection that in view of para No,17 of the General Recruitment Policy, 2004, the Government of the Punjab has constituted Recruitment Complaints Redressal Cell which deals with such like matters and as the petitioners have alternate remedy in form of said forum, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. It has also been averred that as per Serial No,1 of the Contract Recruitment Policy, 2009, the maximum age limit for the appointment of educators has been fixed 35 years and neither fresh nor in-service candidate, above the said age limit, can apply for any post.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per section 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976, the period in service for the upper age limit of the petitioners would be excluded from their ages which has not been done by the respondents illegally and in violation of the aforesaid rules. Further contends that rules have over-riding effect on any policy of the government, therefore, the petitioners are entitled that their applications be entertained and they be appointed in accordance with law.
5. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners have been controverted by the learned A.A.-G. Who has stated that the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit)
Rules, 1976 are not applicable as the Contract Recruitment Policy, 2009 has its own rules and regulations for implementing the said policy. He has also contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as alternate remedy in the form of Recruitment Complaints Redressal Cell is available to the petitioners where they can move their complaints and can have their grievances redressed. He has also relied upon the judgment dated 1-6-2005 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in ICA No,68 of 2005.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
7. The proclamation, referred to above, is containing certain terms and conditions for the candidates who intend to apply for the posts mentioned therein and Clause 2 thereof categorically states that on the last date of receiving applications, the minimum age of the candidate should be 20 years and maximum 35 years and that no relaxation in age limit would be granted and the applications of the overage candidates would be rejected. Clause 4 states that the in-service teachers can file their applications through proper channel. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that these provisions of law are in conflict with Rule 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 which reads as follows:-- "3(v). In the case of a candidate 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.
[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. He has further contended that if there is any conflict between the rules and the policy of the government, the rules will prevail. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has been controverted by the learned A.A.-G. Before entering into this controversy, it may not be out of place to point out here that the appointment policy has provided forum to the aggrieved persons in the shape of Recruitment Complaint Redressal Cell where the petitioners can raise their grievances.
This view has been supported in the judgment dated 1-6-2005 passed in ICA No,68 of 2005 and the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:--- "We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Law Officer at some length in this matter. The learned Additional Advocate-General on instructions by the DCO has stated that the proceedings have been conducted under the Recruitment Policy, 2004, issued by the Provincial Government on 17-9-2004. He draws our attention to the establishment of Recruitment Complaints Redressal Cells headed by an officer not below the rank of Additional Secretary or a Deputy Secretary in case of Departments where the post of Additional Secretary does not exist. These Cells have been authorized to deal with complaints in the matter of violation of the provisions of Recruitment Policy and the manner in which the complaints are to be dealt with. In the attending circumstances of this case, we dispose, of this ICA with a direction that the appellant to immediately file a complaint and in case such a complaint is filed, the same shall be taken up on priority basis and decided in accordance with law and the provisions of the said Recruitment Policy by the concerned Complaints Redressal Cell preferably within a period of six weeks after presentation of the said application. Learned Additional Advocate-General to inform all concerned and additionally the office to send a copy of this order to the Additional Secretary/Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore."
9. In view of the above, this writ petition along with annexures is sent to the Recruitment Complaints Redressal Cell which shall decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, within six weeks from the receipt of this order, by providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned.
10. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.