MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of the act of the respondents, whereby, his application for the post of Elementary School Educator (ESE) was rejected by the respondents on the basis of his being average.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Submits that respondent No. 2 invited applications for various vacancies of Educators; that out of 367 seats of ESEs, 2% were reserved for disabled persons; that the petitioner, who is suffering from some kind of disability of eyes commonly known as Retinatus Pigmentoza, submitted his application under the quota reserved for disabled persons; that the petitioner was the sole applicant who moved application under the quota reserved for disabled persons; that the respondents rejected his application on the ground that he was over age; that according to the learned counsel this act of the respondents is illegal and without lawful authority, inasmuch as, by virtue of Rule 3(VI) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 (amended vide Notification No. SORI (S&GAD)9-252/88, dated 25.3.1989) respondents were bound to grant relaxation to the petitioner in his upper age limit up to ten years.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer submits that pursuant to the notification of the Government of Punjab dated 19.1.2012 bearing No. SOR- IV(S&GAD)7-1/2012 relaxation in the upper age limit was granted to the petitioner, however, his candidature was rejected due to his visual disability; that according to clause 9(a) of the Recruitment Policy, 2011 blind, deaf and dumb candidates are not eligible to apply for the said post; that through this petition the petitioner has sought only age relaxation in his upper age limit, which has already been granted to him and he has not prayed for any relief regarding rejection of his candidature on the basis of his visual disability as such, this Court cannot pass any order beyond the prayer made in the petition.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The stance of the respondents/department is that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected due to his visual disability in the light of clause 9(a) of the Recruitment Policy, 2011. Before proceeding further it is appropriate to reproduce clause 9(a) of the Policy ibid, which provides as follows:- "(a) 2% quota for disabled persons, of the total allocated posts of each category, will be reserved on district basis. Their disability certificates will be issued by Director General, Social Welfare Provincial Council. For Rehabilitation for disabled person. Under disabled persons quota, blind, deaf and dumb candidates will not be eligible to apply. Disability should not hurdle mobility and effect use of blackboard. Disabled candidates fit for teaching profession and able to read, speak, write and use blackboard will be eligible to apply for appointment against this quota."
6. The petitioner is present in the Court, who on Court's call approached the rostrum by making his way through the crowed present in the Court and narrow passage in-between the chairs without any difficulty and this Court observed that the petitioner does not suffer from such a disability so as to prevent his mobility notwithstanding the fact that he may have some kind of visual disorder. As he moved freely in the Court room, it can be safely assumed that the petitioner is not a blind person and his disability is such which does not create any hurdle in his free movement and is unlikely to prevent him from using blackboard effectively, while teaching in a class room. Further, disability certificate of the petitioner issued by the competent authority is available on the record, according to which the nature of his disability is only low vision and he is fit to work. On Court's query on what grounds the respondents have declared the. Petitioner blind, the officer, present in the Court, had no answer. Apparently, on filing of instant Constitutional petition by the petitioner seeking. Relaxation in upper age limit when the respondent/department felt that they were playing on weak wicket and the petitioner would succeed in the lis they came up with the stance that under Clause 9(a) of the Recruitment Policy, 2011 the petitioner was not eligible for the post applied for. Such an attitude on the part of the respondents is highly despicable and the Court severely admonishes them. The petitioner despite having some visual disability has passed his Masters in English from the Punjab University securing 2nd Division, which shows the potential he possesses but the respondents instead of utilizing his abilities are trying to deprive him of the post, on which he is otherwise eligible, on one pretext or other.
7. So far as the contention of the learned Law Officer that the petitioner has not sought any relief against rejection of his candidature on the basis of visual disability as such this Court should not grant the relief which was not prayed for by the petitioner. Suffice to observe that under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 this Court has ample powers to mould a relief in aid of justice. Reliance is placed on case reported as M/s. Facto Belarus Tractors Ltd., Karachi and another Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Production and Special Initiatives, Islamabad and others (PLD 2006 Karachi 479) wherein it has been laid down as under:- "We are not impressed with the contention for the reason that such plea is normally raised in the cases in which the Court is exercising original jurisdiction in suit or appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Even in exercise of such jurisdiction the dominant prevailing view is that the Court can mould the relief and allow the same though it is not prayed for, as the Courts are not merely slaves of the technicalities but are the Courts of justice and, therefore, the relief can be molded in a way which serves the purpose of justice."
8. For the reasons discussed above, this \writ petition is allowed as a result whereof act of the respondents for rejection of candidature of the petitioner is declared illegal, mala i.e and without lawful authority. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of ESE under reserved quota and if he falls on merit issue him appointment order within 60 days from the date hereof under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Bench.