' 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 in the police and appeared in the departmental examination, which was held in October, 1989. He qualified the same. Thereafter, he was placed in promotion list 'A' and on the basis of this he took examination B-1'; which was held on 26-1-1990. It is maintained that the petitioner passed the examination and his name appeared at serial No, 210. Thereafter he was enlisted in list `B-P vide order dated 11-3-1990 under the order of respondent No, 2, who also directed the petitioner and others to appear before him for lower selection. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he went to appear before the respondent No, 2, he was informed that his name has been struck down from list 'A' and `B-I' by the order of respondent No,2 dated 14-5-1990. The petitioner has challenged this order through this Constitutional petition, which was admitted to regular hearing on 5-11-1990 and notices were issued to the respondents. They have entered appearance through Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab.
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 his service. It was respondents, who allowed him to take examination with open eyes. Therefore, the age will be deemed to have been relaxed and respondent No, 2 was estopped by his conduct to reconsider the matter. The arguments are summed up with the submission that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner calling his explanation. 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.