' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners applied for the recruitment to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecutor (BS-17) in the Punjab Public Prosecution Department, in pursuance to consolidated advertisement No,10/2014. However, their applications were summarily rejected for the reason that they had already availed three chances of appearing in the written examination for the said post in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 prior to the current examination.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Regulation 39 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2000, the petitioners are entitled to one more chance, if they become over age and are entitled to age relaxation and the said chance is being denied to the petitioners.
3. Learned law officer on the other hand submits that Regulation 39 provides three chances to appear in written examination, which have already been exhausted in the case of the petitioners.
Therefore, the impugned rejection letters issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission are justified in law. He further submits that the one chance available to a candidate who has been allowed age relaxation does not apply in the present case as the petitioners have already exhausted their three chances, while they were of age.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Regulation 39 of the Punjab Public Service. Commission Regulations, 2000 provides as under:--- "39. All candidates (private or in-service) appearing in 'written examination' to be held by the Commission shall be allowed to avail of three chances only for each particular written examination irrespective of the type or categories of posts grouped in that examination, unless otherwise prescribed by the Government. This will be subject to the condition that candidates fulfil all other requirements of the rules. In case, age relaxation has been allowed, only one chance shall be given."
' The above Regulation provides for two different sets of candidates. One, who are of age on the date of application and the other who are over age but have been allowed age relaxation under the law.
5. In the instant case, petitioners (when they were of age) availed their three chances to appear in the written examinations in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 but without any success. The petitioners (now over age) claim that they are also entitled to the one more chance which is available to candidates who are over age.
6. As far as the second category i.e,, of over age candidate is concerned, it deals with the candidates who have not earlier sat the examination being overage. If such candidates are granted age relaxation, they are entitled to get one chance to sit in the written examination. The over age candidate is a distinct category and does not include candidates who have already unsuccessfully availed three chances when they were of age. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, every candidate will automatically be entitled to four chances to sit in the written examination, three when he was "of age" and one when he becomes "over age", I am afraid, this is not the objective of the said Regulation.
7. The above Regulation meets the needs of two distinct categories of candidates and if this distinction is not maintained, the very purpose and objective of the Regulation is defeated. Once a candidate (while he is of age) has availed and exhausted the three chances he is out of the race and is not entitled to avail the one chance available for a candidate who has been allowed age relaxation. In other words, the one chance available for an over age candidate is not in continuation of the earlier chances but is a special one time allowance or concession given to a candidate who is "over age" and has been granted age relaxation.
8. For the above reasons the view taken by respondent Punjab Public Service Commission in its Rejection Letter dated 8-9-2014 is correct. This petition is hopelessly misconceived and is therefore dismissed.