AYESHA A. MALIK, J. --- Through this petition, the Petitioner has called in question the recruitment process for the post of driver (BS-4) as advertised on 30.08.2014 in the Daily Nawa-e-Waqat Lahore.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he has the requisite qualification and did exceptionally well in the written test, however, in order to accommodate Respondent No, 2, the Petitioner was given less marks in the interview reducing his overall merit so that Respondent No, 2 could be appointed.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that Respondent No, 2 was overage at the time he applied and was not qualified for the post. However, since he was from the department and already working as Qasid, he was accommodated by Respondent No, 1 and offered the post of driver.
3. Reply and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of Respondent No,
1. Learned Law Officer explained that there were two vacancies for the post of driver (BS-4) which were advertised on 30.08.2014. Written test was conducted on 17.09.2014. Sixty-two candidates appeared out of whom thirty-three passed. Thereafter a driving test was conducted and only seven candidates qualified. These seven candidates were interviewed whereafter the merit list was prepared. The post was filled up by appointing the top two candidates. Respondent No, 2 was the top candidate securing seven more marks than the Petitioner. Learned Law Officer further pointed out that Respondent No, 2 secured highest marks in the driving test as well as in the interview. So far as the allegation that Respondent No, 2 was overage, he was already serving as a process server in the District Judiciary and applied for the post of driver when it was advertised. Therefore, he was given the benefit of Rule 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit)
Rules, 1976 ("Rules") on the basis of which he is entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 04.12.2013 passed in W.P. No, 19421/2012.
4. Heard and record perused.
5. The basic issue before the Court is whether the recruitment for the post of driver (BS-4) was illegal and whether Respondent No, 2 was appointed illegally without following the due process.
The first allegation raised by the Petitioner is that he did exceptionally well and was deliberately given less marks in the interview. As per the marks sheet provided, Respondent No, 2 secures 35 marks in the interview whereas the Petitioner secures 10 marks in the interview. There is nothing on the record to establish that any male fide or deliberate effort was made by Respondent No, 1 to reduce the marks of the Petitioner. The interview was carried out by a committee and as such there is nothing on the record on the basis of which the Petitioner has been able to satisfy the Court that he was deliberately given less marks. Even otherwise, in comparison with Respondent No, 2, the Petitioner has higher qualification marks, however the written test marks are the same and Respondent No, 2 has more marks in the driving testa Therefore, for the purpose of this allegation, there is no merit in the same.
6. The second allegation raised by the Petitioner is with respect to age relaxation given to Respondent No,
2. Learned counsel argued that minimum age relaxation for Respondent No, 2 is five years, however, he is admittedly 47 years of age, therefore, being overage he cannot be employed. The Respondents have relied upon the Rules where the period of continuous service can be excluded from the upper age limit for the benefit of Government servant. The relevant Rule 3(v) of the Rules is reproduced below: 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 that 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.
In terms of this Rule, where a candidate is already working as a Government Servant, the period of his continuous service must be excluded from the upper age limit. This is beneficial legislation which entitles those who are already working as Government Servants to have the total length of service excluded from their age, in order to bring them within the ambit of age requirement.
Essentially serving candidates are given the benefit of their continuous years of service to the Government. In the event of any ambiguity, since it is beneficial in nature, it must be interpreted favourably to give benefit to the candidate. In this case, Respondent No, 2 was appointed as process server on 19.09.1991 and the last date of receipt of applications was 13.09.2014. The period that must be excluded from his age is from 19.09.1991 to 13.09.2014 being 22 years, 11 months and 26 days. Respondent No, 2's date of birth is 01.01.1967 and at the time of submission of applications his total age was 47 years, 8 months and 12 days, therefore, when 22 years, 11 months and 26 days are excluded from his age, he is more than 25 years of age bringing him within the ambit of the Rule.
Even otherwise, it is noted that since this is beneficial legislation, the object of the Rules is to exclude the length of service from the age of the applicant so that the age of the candidate does not exceed 35 years for recruitment to any post to be filled in on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. Essentially it means that a Government Servant should fall between the age given in this case being 25 years upto the upper age limit, which is 35 years.
Therefore, as such no illegality is made out as Respondent No, 2 has been given the benefit of Rule 3(v) of the Rules in accordance with law.
7. Under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. This petition stands dismissed.