' Sardar Muhammad, an ex-serviceman, presently elementary School Teacher, serving in Education Department, Province of Punjab, seeks appointment to the post of Secondary School Teacher on the basis of age relaxation available to ex-servicemen in the light of certain Notifica - tions/instructions issued by the Government of Punjab. Present constitu tional petition arises in the following circumstances: ' Sardar Muhammad was born on 3-3-1937, joined service in Pakistan Army on 10-9-1955 in the capacity of a sepoy. He was discharged from the service being surplus to the establishment on 1- 7-1963. His services were recalled during the emergency, on 13-12-1971. He was relieved finally on 25-5-1972. Petitioner was absorbed in civil employment in the capacity of Elementary School Teacher on 27-10-1972, when he was of 35 years 7 months and 24 days against the maximum age limit of 30 years. During all these years the petitioner has been busy in improving upon his educational qualifications and now holds a degree in B.A., B.Ed. from the Punjab University.
2. Applications were invited to fill in certain vacancies of Secondary School Teacher in Gujranwala Division. Maximum age limit for the post in respect of male candidates was fixed at 30 years relaxable for a further period of 5 years in suitable circumstances. Petitioner as an ex-serviceman applied for the post of Secondary School Teacher out of quota reserved for ex-servicemen and claimed age relaxation on account of Army service. He was interviewed and succeeded to be at S.No.5 of the merit list. However, he was not considered on the quota reserved for ex-servicemen and was dropped. His representation for reconsidera tion of his case in the reserved quota did not yield any fruitful results and was finally turned down on 13-3-1984 vide page 45 of the file.
3. Petitioner at the time of interview had reached the age of 45 years 10 months and 22 days. He claimed relaxation for 17 years. 10 months and 22 days on account of the period spent in the service of Pakistan Army, and the period spent between his release and absorption in civil employment.
Benefit so claimed was not extended which brought the petitioner to the High Court praying for the quashment of the impugned decision in constitutional jurisdiction. Report called for has been submitted by the official-respondent. Mr.S.M.Zubair, learned A.A.-G. also appeared of his own to assist the Court. Petition came up for motion hearing on 15-10-1984. Learned counsel have been heard at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner as an ex- serviceman was entitled to relaxation of age limit on account of service in the Army and the period thereafter falling in between his release from the Army to the date of his re-employment in Civil Service as Elementary School Teacher. The period when so calculated came to 17 years 10 months.
If this period is excluded from consideration, his case fell well within the maximum age limit fixed for the post of Secondary School Teacher. Reliance was placed on Notification dated 1-6-1976 issued by Government of Punjab in its Services, General Administration and Information Department. Relevant para. reads as under:- "Vide S&GAD's notification, dated Ist April, 1976, maximum age limit prescribed for a post should be relaxed in favour of an ex-serviceman to the extent of service rendered by him in the Defence Forces plus the interval between the date of his release and the date of his re-employment in a Civil Department."
4. It is contended that the official-respondents have been, by putting wrong construction on this part of the notification refused the appointment to the petitioner, which he, otherwise well- deserved on merits. Mr.S.M.Zubair, A.A-G. in reply submitted that petitioner has, once availed of the age relaxation on account of being an ex-serviceman and thus stood absorbed in the civil employment. He, no longer, can be considered on a quota reserved for ex-serviceman and granted the age relaxation for second time. He, at the time of interview, was a civilian employee and had to compete, as such, with other candidates. At the time of interview, the petitioner is stated to have crossed 45 years of age, and as such had been rightly ignored from consideration by the respondents. In this behalf he relied upon Government instructions in the letter Memo.
No.182/D-14(W)/82, dated 9-2-1982 from the Deputy Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi. It is further pointed out that the petitioner's case was referred to Director Public Instruction (Schools), Punjab who also did not favour the construction sought to be placed upon the Government Notification by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that he had been singled out while the other ex-servicemen had been granted employment, by Government. He has referred to certain names which have been listed in Annexure 'G' of the present file.
6. Government, in its anxiety, and rightly so, with a view to improve the enconomic well-being of ex- servicemen and to reward them for their services rendered by them in the sacred defence of the country reserved certain precentage in the Civil Service for them and for that end in view also granted relaxation in the age limit. That is laudable. But, then, once an ex-serviceman, has been absorbed in Civil Service, and has availed of the benefit of relaxation, the matter should end.The maximum age for E.S.T. was 30 years. Petitioner was much above the age limit fixed at the time of his earlier employment. He was considered on the reserved quota for ex-servicemen and given appointment.
Thereafter he was a civilian employee. It is not the spirit and purport of the notification that ex- serviceman can avail of the relaxation in age limit at different times and stages exhausting part and keep the remaining in store to be utilized when the occasion arose. Purpose seems to have been satisfied when once the petitioner was given employment out of reserved quota for ex- servicemen and on the basis of relaxation in age limit. I can well-appreciate the petitioner's efforts and anxiety to step up ladder and improve his lot, but I am constrained to observe, instructions/notifications relied upon do not lend any help and advance the case of the petitioner in this behalf. In this view of the matter I feel the petition discloses no serious merit. It fails and is dismissed in limine.