' Through this single order we intend to decide the instant Intra Court Appeal as well as I.C.A.
No,392/2016 and I.C.A. No,393/2016 as the cause of action is similar in all the appeals.
2. Through the instant Intra Court Appeal as well as the above-mentioned appeals, the Appellants have called in question the legality of impugned orders all dated 29.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No,10090/2015, Writ Petition No,10091/2015 and Writ Petition No,10092/2015 by the learned Single Judge whereby their writ petitions were dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that the learned Single Judge in the impugned orders has not appreciated the fact that the District and Sessions Judge could enjoy full powers to relax age limit in respect of their inferior appointments to any extent; that the case of the Appellants for relaxation of upper age limit has never been considered by the Respondent No,2; that the Appellants have been applying for the said posts in past but unfortunately have not been successful and now have become overage, as such exceptional circumstances duly emerged because stroke of bad luck was beyond their control; that during the pendency of the writ petition similarly placed children of serving/retired employees have been allowed relaxation of upper age limit but the Appellants have been deprived of the same, as such it is a clear case of discrimination. Learned counsel for the Appellants in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the case titled Government of Punjab through Secretary (S&GAD), Lahore and another v. Zafar Maqbool Khan and others (2012 SCMR 686).
4. On the other hand learned Law Officer contested the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellants and prayed for dismissal of all the appeals on the grounds that there is no illegality in the impugned orders; that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law as the Appellants have failed to establish exceptional circumstances.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant and learned AAG and examined the record.
6. Through these appeals the Appellants have sought a direction to the Respondent No,2 for considering the issue of relaxation of age and further their appointments as Process Server from the 20% quota of the serving /retired employees. From the perusal of record it reveals that the Appellants have filed their applications for relaxation of upper age limit on 18.03.2015 and 19.03.2015 whereas the advertisement for the questioned posts clearly mentions that for the post at Serial No,1 favour can be given in relaxation of upper age limit up-to five years as per the policies of Government of Punjab as well as this Court. It was also mentioned in the advertisement that to seek relaxation of upper age limit the candidates must append a separate application giving reasons for relaxation. The perusal of advertisement also reveals that the cutoff date for submission of applications was 28.04.2014 along with specific condition that the applications submitted after the cutoff date and incomplete applications will not be considered. So, in the attending circumstances, it was essential for the Appellants to submit applications for relaxation of upper age limit along with the application for the post of Process Server whereas the Appellants have filed the applications for relaxation of upper age limit much later to cutoff date i,e, on 19.03.2015. From the record it is clear that the District and Sessions Judge, Lahore on 18.03.2015 and 20.03.2015 referred the applications to the Senior Civil Judge/Chairman Recruitment Committee.
However, on 30.03.2015 the Senior Civil Judge/Chairman Recruitment Committee dismissed the applications against which writ petitions were filed. It is further observed that the Appellants were well within their knowledge that they have exceeded the required age limit but even they did not bother to given applications for relaxation of upper age limit mentioning therein reasons for the same before the cutoff date. Therefore, suffice it to say that the Appellants are not entitled to seek relaxation of upper age limit at this stage. As observed above, neither the Appellants have given any reason for relaxation of upper age limit before the learned Single Judge and before use as well nor any exceptional circumstances have been established at this stage.
7. Furthermore, from the perusal of impugned order it reveals that the learned Single Judge has observed that the Appellants have failed to establish exceptional circumstances i,e, cases involving factors beyond human control for relaxation in upper age limit. The word 'exceptional circumstances' has been used by the Honourable Supreme Court in case titled Deputy Director Social Welfare v. Mohammad Laique (2004 PLC (C.S.) 595) in which it was held as follows: "we cannot subscribe to this narrow interpretation of the judgment and irrespective of the fact whether this ground was taken in the Memo. Of petition or not, would like to observe that exceptional situation must be spelt out from the record rather than recently accepted on erroneous assumptions."
8. We see no illegality or perversity in the impugned order which does not warrant any interference by us. The case law cited by the B learned counsel for the Appellants is distinguishable to the case in hand as such has no relevancy.
9. In view of above, the instant appeal as well as abovementioned appeals, being devoid of any merit, are accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.