IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.-- The petitioner through this constitutional petition has sought a declaration that the impugned order dated 14.5.1990 is illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is serving with the Punjab Police and he appeared in the departmental examination held in October, 1989, and qualified the same. The result was that his name was placed in promotion list 'A'. The petitioner, thereafter, appeard in 'B-I' examination and also passed the same, the grievance of the petitioner is that his name has been removed from list A'. Therefore, as a natural consequence his name has not been included in list 'B-I' in-spite of the fact that he had passed the examination. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.5.1990 through this petition which was admitted to regular hearing on 10.11.1990 and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have entered appearance through Rana Muhammad Arshad, Additional Advocate General.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the impugned order has been passed on the sole basis that the petitioner has not completed three years' tenure as Constable before his name was put on list 'A'. It is submitted that the petitioner did not take examination by misrepresentation of facts as to the length of service. It was the respondents, who allowed him t take examination with open eyes. Therefore, the age will be deemed to have been relaxed in case of the petitioner and the respondents were estopped by their own conduct to re- consider the Matter. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has passed the order without hearing the petitioner or calling for his explanation. The arguments are summed up with the submission that the impugned order was subject matter of W.P. No. 3880 of 1990 which was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 25.9.1990. The respondents have not cared to controvert the factual position by filing a written statement.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is not possible for him to defend the order passed without hearing the petitioner especially in view of the decision of W.P. No. 3880 of 1990.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.5.1990 of respondent No.2 is set aside with costs.