' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- This petition challenges Standing Order 8 of 2001 for a requirement for candidates for B--1 course to obtain 60% marks in the entry list administered by S.P. Of the district concerned. Rules 13.5, 13.6 and 13.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, do not impose any such requirement.
The Standing Order 8 of 2001 is hence impugned as being without legal authority.
2. For imposing the said requirement of standards of performance of a candidate for his selection to B-1 course the provisions of the Police Order, 2002 ("Order") do not give authority to Inspector- General of Police to modify the Rules. However, Article 10(2) and (3) of the Order gives him powers to issue standing orders and directions for efficient functioning of the police consistent with the provisions of the Order and Rules framed thereunder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by imposing a test the Standing Order 8 of 2001 is illegal for purportedly modifying the applicable provisions of the Police Rules.
4. Learned Additional Advocate-General has defended the impugned standing order on the ground that it is in force for the last 10 years without objection and does not contravene any specific provisions of the Rules. With the assistance of the learned counsel Rules 13.5, 13.6 and 13.7 of Police Rules, 1934 have been read. These visualize the basic level of literacy of candidates for entry into list B-1 promotion course. As such no specific additional requirement is mentioned.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. A basic level of literacy may have sufficed in 1934 entailing a capability to read and write simple sentences. However, that standard cannot be said to remain stagnant over time and new elements of capability and knowledge may be introduced to test of simple level of literacy and therefore, understanding in the present day.
Learned Additional Advocate-General has informed that the entry test is multiple choice test which is simple and evaluates aptitude as well as understanding of facts and subjects of common knowledge. The more significant point that he has made is that the said test has been applied successfully for the last 10 years without objection.
6. To the mind of the Court, consistent departmental practice itself constitutes a fair ground to continue that practice. The reason is the certainty that it brings to administrative policies. Secondly, in this matter specification of 60% pass marks is of no relevance. What is relevant is the level of knowledge that is expected of a candidate. Even at the erstwhile level of pass marks, the petitioners may still be excluded if the level of questions is raised. Consequently, objection taken by the petitioners is merely of a formal nature. Accordingly to the mind of the court, so long as the level of test is confined to basic knowledge, the passing marks fixed for eligibility to B-1 course does not infringe the Rules that are silent on the subject. Therefore, the impugned Standing Order 8 of 2001 does not violate any right of the petitioners as candidates.
7. .