' The brief facts are that the petitioner appeared in the C.T. Class Examination of the year 1991 as a private candidate under Roll No,4456, which was held by respondents 1 to 4. However, the result of the petitioner was not declared, therefore, the present writ petition was filed by him.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications and fulfilled the conditions for appearing in the C.T. Examination for which permission was granted by respondent No, 1 . Roll No,4456 was also allocated to him. He further stated that it was only after the result was announced that the petitioner's result was withheld on the flimsy ground that he did not fulfil the condition of age. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions prescribed for the examination were also fulfilled by the petitioner.
3. In pursuance of the order of the Court dated 17-9-1995, report and parawise comments were submitted by the Director of Elementary Education, Lahore Division, Lahore, in which stand taken was as follows:-- "A committee scrutinized the record of the petitioner and reported him as underage i,e, 18 years 3 months and 5 days, whereas the age required for the said examination was 18 years 9 months as mentioned in the Examination Schedule."
' According to the report it was for this reason alone that the petitioner was considered to be not eligible for this examination, therefore, his result was not declared.
4. It is admitted fact which is also borne by the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner, that he was born on 20th September, 1972 and, accordingly, the petitioner attained the age of 18 years on 19th September, 1990. The conditions laid down in the Admission Form issued for PTC/CT/OT Examination, as laid down by the Directorate of Education (Schools), Lahore Division, Lahore, were as under:- , {{URDU TEXT}} (,).
' The departmental representative states that the petitioner did not fulfill condition ' ' which states that the candidate should have at least nine months' experience on 25-11-1990, which was lacking in the case of the petitioner as he could not have gained nine months' experience after attaining eighteen years age. However, condition is clear that for the untrained candidates minimum age is 18 years.
6. A candidate who has fulfilled conditions {{URDU TEXT}}and {{URDU TEXT}} and is trained shall also have to qualify the age limit as required under condition .The departmental representative states that all the conditions shall have to be fulfilled by all the candidates.
7. The petitioner averred in his petition that he had attained the requisite training and experience and placed on record certificate to that effect. These averments have not been controverted on factual plane. However, it is argued on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 that teaching experience of nine months, as stated under condition is to be calculated after attaining the age of eighteen years.
This argument has no substance. Both the conditions {{URDU TEXT}} and {{URDU TEXT}}are independent and separate and are to be fulfilled by a candidate. The petitioner fulfilled both these conditions as also held by the District Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner had more than nine months' teaching experience on 25-11-1990 (condition) ') and was more than eighteen years old (condition') at the relevant time. It is nowhere laid down, as argued by the respondents, that the candidate should have minimum nine months' experience on 25-11-1990 after attaining the age of eighteen years.
8. Further, the petitioner's Admission Form was accepted as having fulfilled all the conditions and was found eligible to appear in the Examination by the Scrutiny Committee. He was issued Roll No, and allowed to appear in the examination by respondents Nos.1 to 4. Respondents 1 to 4 were thus estopped by their conduct to say that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the C.T.
Examination. Even on the principle of locus poenitentiae the respondents could not retrace their foot steps.
9. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and respondents 1 to 4 are directed to declare the result of the petitioner in C.T. Class Examination of 1991. No order as to costs.