' This order shall also dispose of writ petition No, 8740/80, which also raises identical questions of fact and law.
2. Petitioner who was serving as a Lecturer in the Education Department of the Provincial Government appeared in and qualified the Federal Public Service Commission competitive examination, 1978. He was placed at 97th merit position. Respondent No, 1, thereafter, vide its letter, dated 20th March, 1980, offered an appointment to the petitioner in grade 17 in Accounts Group, under the Federal Government. The petitioner joined the Civil Service Academy on 5th April, 1980.
The other petition has similar facts.
3. Before the receipt of the letter, dated 20th March, 1980 referred to above, the petitioner had also appeared in the 1979 competitive examination of the Federal Public Service Commission and secured the 38th position. The petitioner in the other writ petition was placed at the 4th position in a similar situation as in this case.
4. On 11th June, 1980, the Federal Public Service Commission asked the petitioners of their preferences under the result of the 1979 examination. However, on 10th July, 1980, the Commission cancelled its previous letter for the reason that the petitioners having already joined grade 17 posts were not entitled to take benefit of the second examination, The Commission relied on para 4 WO of the notice for the competitive examination, 1979. The petitioners have challenged the above- said order through the present writ petitions.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel that para. 4 (iii) relied upon by the respondents for cancelling the petitioners' candidature for 1979 examination does not support the respondents' plea. It will be useful to reproduce para. 4 (iii) hereunder :- "In the case of Government servants who have rendered a minimum of 2 years continuous service on the last date prescribed for submission of applications, the upper age limit would be relaxed to 30 years of age. This relaxation will, however, be allowed for not more than two chances to appear in the examination after the Government servant has attained the age of 25 years. These two chances shall be allowed in addition to the chance which the Government servant may have availed of before entering Government service. This concession will not, however, be admissible to Government servants appointed in Grade 17 and above on the results of the competitive examinations held by the Federal Public Service Commission for recruitment to Grades 17 and 16 under the Federal Government Employees of the Nationalised Banks, State Bank of Pakistan, WAPDA, NDVP and other autonomous bodies are also not eligible for this concession."
6. The above para. Shows that it was meant to grant concession to a category of Government servants who had attained the age of 25 years. It also creates an exception against those who had been appointed to Grade 17 by virtue of a similar previous examination for recruitment to grades 17 and 16. The present discussion is concerned with determination of a point of time when the exception shall come into operation.
7. The case of the petitioners is that the bar will be operative on the date of application for the next examination. The documents being relied upon by the respondents lay down rules for admission to the examination. Consequently the operative date can have reference to the examination and not the date of allocation. The contention of the respondents is that the operative date is the date when the allocation is to be made on the result of the subsequent examination. This plea, however, has no reference to the rule 4 (iii) referred to above. As said the concession about admission to the examination and not the case of allocation.
8. This is not denied on behalf of the respondents and is supported by the contents of para. 4 of the writ petition that petitioners had qualified the subsequent examination before they were appointed in Grade 17 on the basis of the previous examination of 1973. The respondents have not denied this fact in the written statement. The same position is taken by the other petitioner in his petition as well as Annex. 'H'.
9. In view of the above and for the reason that the respondents are taking date of allocation illegally as the relevant date I am of the view that the denial of concession on the part of the respondents is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondent No, 2 is also directed to allow the petitioners their due right. The parties to bear their own costs.
Writ .