1. ' IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-- The relevant facts for the decision of this appeal are that the appellants were serving as constables and posted at various Police Stations in Multan district. It is pleaded that the appellants successfully took competitive examination held by respondent No, 1 on 11-4-1978 for admission to List B-I. It is added that their names were admitted to List B-I and were thus entitled to be proceeded for training to Lower School Course at P.T.C. Sihala. It is further added that the appellants still have not attained the maximum age limit of 33 years. The grievance of the appellants is that the respondent No, 2 proceeded to cancel the result of the examination and their names removed from List B-I. It is added that the appellants moved for relaxation in upper age limit alongwith many others but the same was turned down by respondent No,
3. The appellants thereafter decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through the present appeal. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 7-4-1988 and notices issued to respondents who have entered appearance through learned District Attorney and contested the appeal.
2. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney for respondents and gone through the paper book. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal has argued:-
(1) That the appellants have been meted with discriminatory treatment, therefore, the order of respondent No, 3 is bad in law.
(2) That respondent No, 2 has no jurisdiction to cancel the result after the same having been acted upon.
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellants in this behalf has placed reliance on two judgments of this Tribunal in case of Alamdar Hussain and seven others v. I -G.P. And others (Appeal No, 193/103 of 1985), Faqir Hussain and 3 others v. I.-G.P. And 2 others (Appeal No, 177/804 of 1988).
4. ' On the other hand learned District Attorney has argued that the matter of relaxation of upper age limit was purely discretionary matter and the decision cannot be made subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal. It is, however, admitted that the appellant duly qualified the competitive examination which was cancelled by respondent No, 2 and thereafter the appellants became over age.
5. ' We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides and gone through the earlier decision of this Tribunal. In case of Alamdar Hussain etc. The Appellate Tribunal held:-
(i) That respondent No, 2 had no powers under rule 13.10(i) to cancel the result of competitive examination as well as List B-I after it has taken effect;
(ii) That the principle of locus penitential is applicable; and
(iii) That the order was discriminatory.
6. ' We need not advert to the other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants because the case of the appellants is fully covered by the precedent case, which was followed in the case of Faqir Hussain etc. As mentioned above. The pleas of law and facts remain the same, therefore, we allow this appeal and remand it to respondent No, 3 for reconsideration of the matter of relaxation in upper age limit in accordance with law. The matter should be decided within 2 months. There is no order as to costs.