' MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.---This judgment will concern three Intra-Court Appeals Nos,1287 of 1998, 1361 of 1998 and 1363 of 1998. First one calls in question order passed by learned Single Judge dated 22-10-1998. Second and third appeals assail two orders of learned Single Judge dated 25-11-1998.
First appeal arises out of Writ Petition No,7649 of 1998; second appeal emanates from Writ Petition No,19416 of 1998 and third one comes from Writ Petition No,18177 of 1998. The appellants, in all the three Intra-Court Appeals, were respondents in the aforesaid petitions. Respondent No,1 in the first Intra-Court Appeal, is Yousaf Haroon son of Mian Abdullah Haroon resident of Mohallah Islam Park, Railway Road, Khanewal. Second appeal is against four respondents namely Muhammad Khan son of Bati Khan, resident of village Fattuwala, Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din, Khalid Hussain son of Ch. Muhammad Hussain resident of House No, 2.S.58, B. No,22 Sargohda, Nasir Ali Saqib son of Muhammad Nawaz resident of Zeeshan General Store near Church, Gojra Road, Jhang and Shafqat Nadeem Chaudhry son of Haji Ata Muhammad, resident of Ideal Grammar School, Choong, Multan Road, Lahore. Sole respondent, in the third Intra-Court Appeal, is Shahid Ikram son of Muhammad Ikram resident of Gulshan Town, Hassan Pura, Sialkot City. The aforesaid respondents' writ petitions were allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 22-10-1998 and 25-11-1998 respectively. Since all these I.C.As. Flow from similar background and raise common questions of law, these are being decided through single judgment.
2. Facts, briefly stated, giving rise to the afore-noted appeals are as follows. Punjab Public Service Commission (briefly described as Commission) invited applications for holding written/oral test for appointment of 300 Inspectors in Punjab Police, This happened vide an advertisement in daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore dated 28-9-1997. In response to it, the respondents submitted their applications alongwith necessary documents; appeared in written test as well as oral interview and came out with flying colours. Resultantly, their names were recommended to competent authorities for their appointment. This was, however, not the end of the matter. To their misfortune, a complaint was lodged that some of candidates had manipulated their entry in examination after securing false certificates, with regard to physical standard, from medical officer and so the appointment orders (if issued) be recalled. Consequently, Divisional Boards were constituted by the Provincial Government comprising concerned D.I.Gs./Police Range, concerned Superintendents of Police and Medical Superintendents of the concerned headquarters hospitals or their representatives. The task, assigned to these Boards, was to measure the height and chest of candidates/recommended by the Commission. In result, the respondents were examined by the so constituted Boards, and were found deficient in height and chest. On account of the aforesaid findings, the matter was referred to the Provincial Government for necessary action. This occurred on 17-8-1998. Dissatisfied, Yousaf Haroon filed Writ Petition No,7649 of 1998, Muhammad Khan and three others moved Writ Petition No,19416 of 1998 while Shahid Ikram instituted Writ Petition No,18177 of 1998. Writ Petition No,7649 of 1998 came up for hearing before our brother Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J. His Lordship was pleased to accept the petition in the following terms:-- "It is also a fact that five candidates were granted exemption to four candidates for 2" in deficiency in chest and one Khalid Mehmood Tabassam of Lahore Range deficiency in height by 1" vide Letter No,SE-1/2873-82/E.I/93 dated 16-5-1993 and endorsement No,5169-5233/F.II, dated 18-5-1993 (Mark 'A') by the Inspector General of Police.In this view of the matter the petitioners are entitled to be treated equally before law and to equal protection of law without any discrimination. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs."
3. Remaining two writ petitions were listed before our brother Ihsanul-Haq Chaudhry, J., and were allowed on 25-11-1998. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment: "The impugned order conveyed to the petitioners makes no sense particularly as to the deficiency pointed out. The same has been issued 'mechanically without applying mind, therefore, no order in the eye of law. Now coming to the deficiency in height. The admitted position on record is that the scale supplied by the Government to the Health Department are different from one supplied by the.
Police, therefore, the alleged deficiency in the height of the petitioners namely, Shahid Ikram in Writ Petition No,18177 of 1998 and Khalid Hussain, Nasir Ali Saqib and Shafqat Nadeem Chaudhry in Writ Petition No,19416 of 1998 could not furnish basis for withdrawal when the Health Department was using the official scale for measurement of the height of all the civil servants and appointees referred to for medical check-up. This order cannot be sustained when a petition has already been accepted by one learned Single Bench of this Court and the treatment meted by these petitioners was discriminatory therefore, the impugned order of respondent No,2 to their extent are liable to be set aside straightaway.
' Now coming to the petitioner Muhammad Khalid Malik in Writ Petition No,17255 of 1998 and Muhammad Khan Petitioner No,! In Writ Petition No,19416 of 1998. The deficiency has been noted in respect of the chest. Respondent No,1 was ill-advised to straightaway withdraw the recommendation in respect of them. The action should have been taken after giving them opportunity of being heard, therefore, the impugned order of the Commission is set aside as being violative of the principle of natural justice. However, the Commission will be at liberty to proceed against these two petitioners in accordance with law as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zakir Ahmad (supra)."
4. Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, learned Advocate-General, inter alia urged as follows:-- ' Firstly, that the learned Single Judge had erred in law in applying the doctrine of equality as embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution; that respondents in these Intra-Court Appeals were accorded equal treatment by the competent authorities; that all successful candidates including respondents (recommended by the Commission) were subject to physical test by a Board constituted by the Provincial Government; that their height and chest were measured by the District Health Officer in the presence of D.I.-G. And S.P. On the above line of reasoning, it was stressed that the doctrine of equality was fully adhered to in the case of respondents; that instance of relaxation made in 1993 could not be pressed into service in recruitments of Inspectors in 1998.
' Secondly, that the physical standards as laid down in Rule 12.15 of Police Rules, 1934, were condition precedent for appointment of an inspector and his induction in the police force; although the D.I.- G. Was empowered to relax the above standard in special cases; yet relaxation of aforesaid condition was within the discretionary power of D.I.-G. And to be made in special circumstances/event. On this line of approach, it was stressed that the action of the Provincial Government/culminating into withdrawal of the recommendation by the Commission was unexceptionable.
' Thirdly, that the Rule 12.16 of the Police Rules was to be read alongwith Rule 12.17 and Appendix 12.16; that the authority of the Surgeon was to give a certificate with regard to height, eyesight, speech and hearing of the candidate, his freedom from physical defects, organic or contagious disease, or any other defect or tendency likely to render him unfit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12.6 even empowered/empowers the Superintendents of Police to reject those candidates whose general standard of physique and intelligence was/is unsatisfactory. This empowerment clearly demonstrated that physical standards were to be checked by Police Authorities and not by Health Authorities whose role was of facilitative character.
' Fourthly, that learned Single Judge had not correctly construed relevant rules namely, 12.15, 12.16 and Appendix 12.16.
5. On the contrary, Khawaja Saeed-uz-Zafar, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents, supported the impugned order. He contended that under Rules noted above, it was the function of Health Officer/authorities to measure the height/chest of respondents and this was outside the powers of Police authorities to do so. On this line of approach it was suggested that the Government had no business to constitute Boards and that the said Boards had no business to measure the height and chest of the respondent. Reliance was placed on Rule 12.15 and Rule 12.16 of Police Rules, 1934.
According to learned counsel, the expression District Health Officer and Civil Surgeon employed in the above rule clearly fix the responsibility of Health Authority to measure the chest and height of recruits. Lastly, it was submitted that under Rule 12.16 the Deputy Inspector-General had authority to relax the physical standard as set down therein in special cases; that the respondents had appeared in written examination as well as oral tests successfully; that the respondents were post- graduates; that on these facts the learned D.I.G. Should have exercised his discretion of relaxation in their favour and condoned if there was any minor deficiency in chest and height of respondents.
Reliance was placed upon Sheraz Ata Ullah Khan (minor) through his real maternal uncle v. Nasir Ahmad Khan and others (1993 CLC 945), Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v.
Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Ltd. (PLD 1991 SC 4), Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain v. State (1995 SCM R 1249) and Abdul Razzaq Rathore v. The State (PLD 1992 Kar.39).
6. From the foregoing narration of facts, circumstances and arguments of the parties, the following queans arise for consideration:---
(1) Was the doctrine of equality, as embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution, applied to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand?
(2) Is/are the Health Authorities namely Civil Surgeon/D.H.O/Medical Officer competent to measure height, chest of successful candidates and Boards, constituted by the Province of Punjab, to undertake that exercise were incompetent?
(3) Were the respondents entitled to benefit of relaxation of conditions of height and chest under Rule 12.16 of Police Rules?
7. In so far Point No,1 is concerned, it is free from difficulty. The doctrine of equality, as contained in Article 25 of the Constitution, enshrines the golden rules of Islam. It states that every citizen, no matter howhighsoever he is, must be accorded equal treatment with similarly situated, persons. It, so, means that similarly situated people should be treated equally. However, it is well known that this clause does not prohibit the treatment to citizen by State on the basis of reasonable classification. This Article came up for consideration before Supreme Court in Brig. (Retd.) F.B. Ali and others v. The State PLD 1975 SC 506 wherein it was held: "The concept of the 'equal protection of laws; which is derived from the American Constitution is not susceptible of any exact definition. In other words, as stated by the editors of American Jurisprudence, Vol. 12, page 409, 'no rule as to protection of laws that will cover every case can be formulated and no test of the type of cases involving such a clause of the Constitution can be infallible or all inclusive. Moreover, it would be impracticable and unwise to attempt to lay down any generalization covering the subject; each case must be decided as it. Arises'. Be that as it may, the only generalization that is possible is that it means 'subjection tQ equal laws applying to all in the same circumstances' but this does not mean that laws must affect every man, woman and child alike. This guarantee does not forbid discrimination with respect to things that are different nor does it prohibit classification which is reasonable and is based upon substantial differences having a relation to the objects or persons dealt with and to the public purpose sought to be achieved. It guarantees equality and not identity of rights.
' The principle is well-recognized that a State may classify persons and objects for the purpose of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons or objects within a class. In fact almost all legislation involves some kind of classification whereby some people acquire rights or suffer disabilities which others do not. What, however, is prohibited under this principle is legislation favouring some within a class and unduly burdening others. Legislation affecting alike all persons similarly situated is not prohibited. The mere fact that legislation is made to apply only to a certain group of persons and not to others does not invalidate the legislation if it is so made that all persons subject to its terms are treated alike under similar circumstances. This is considered to be permissible classification."
' This view was reiterated in Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan (PLD 1976 SC 57), Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 899) and I.A, Sherwani v Government of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 1041).
8. Tested on above touchstones, we are in no manner of doubt that in the instant cases respondents were treated equally by the appointing Authority and doctrine of equality was not infracted in any manner. Our brother Munir Ahmad Mughal, J., with due respect of him, did apply the rule of equality by pressing into service the examples of relaxation in appointment of Inspectors in 1993 and did not notice that no relaxation had been made in the exercise of recruitment of respondent in 1993 at all. This being the position we are very clear in our mind that the doctrine of equality was not correctly applied. In view of the above, we are not able to uphold the decision of our brother Munir Ahmad Mughal, J. In Writ Petition No,7649 of 1998.
9. Stage is, now, set to answer question No,2. It hinges upon interactions of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 namely Rules Nos,12.1, 12.8, 12.6 12.15, 12.16 and 12.17. These are contained in Volume II. Rule 12.1 specified the competent authorities to whom the.Power had been delegated to make appointment of Inspectors of Police, A.S.Is., S.Is. Without any doubt, the power to appoint inspectors lies with D.I.- G./A.I.-G. Government Railways Police and A.I.-G. Member Additional of Police. The aforesaid authorities are to make appointment within parameters laid down by above rules. Rule 12.6 prescribes the qualifications for direct appointment of Inspector/Sub-Inspector. Its sub-rule (2) postulates that appointment shall be made on the recommendation of Punjab Service Commission. It further ordains that Commission will hold the examination of candidates. Its sub- rule (3) lays down that candidate shall possess good moral character, must be between 18- to 25 years age; that candidate must be graduate. Rule 12.15 provides that recruit shall not be more than 25 years of age or less than 18 years of age at the time of enrolment and shall have minimum height of 5 feet 7 inches and formal chest measurement of 33 inches with an expansion of 1-1/2 inches: It also embodies the power of D.I.-G. To relax the aforesaid condition in case of special caste and classes which supply desirable recruits whose height is less than prescribed standard. It can be safely said that this rule is very important and embodies physical standards for appointment of recruits as Inspectors. Rule 12.16 is also significant. It is as follows:-- "12.16.--(1) Every recruit shall, before enrolment, be medically examined and certified physically fit for service by-the Civil Surgeon. A certificate, in the prescribed form (No,64), signed by the Civil Surgeon personally, is an essential qualification for. Enrolment (vide Fundamental Rule).
' The examination by the Civil Surgeon will be conducted in accordance with the instructions issued by the Medical Department and will test the eyesight, speech, and hearing of the candidate, his freedom from physical defect, organic or contagious disease or any other defect or tendency likely to render him unfit, and his age. The candidate must strip for examination, a lying covering being allowed except when the examination is being completed, and any candidate who refused to do so must be rejected. The conditions of police service make it necessary that the medical examination of candidate should be strict. Candidate shall be rejected for any disease or defect which is likely to render them unfit for the full duties of a police officer.
' Superintendents are themselves responsible for rejecting candidates whose general standard of physique and intelligence is unsatisfactory; only those candidates should be sent for medical examination whom the Superintendent has accepted as being up to the required standard in these respects."
' It says that every recruit shall, before enrolment, be subjected to medical examination and certified to be physically fit for service by Civil Surgeon. Its sub-rule (2) empowers the Superintendents of Police to reject the candidates who do not fulfil the physical criterion and do not possess reasonable intelligence. Superintendents of Police are, thus, empowered not to send such candidates for medical test. Rule 12.17 applies when a candidate has crossed the above stages. The recruit is sent to Line Officer who shall put him in the charge of Chief Drill Instructor.
10. From the above analysis, it thus, becomes clear that Rules 12.15 and 12.16 clearly lay down the physical standards of a recruit to be inducted to police force as inspector. Summarily, these rules postulate that height of a recruit be 5 feet-7 inches and his chest must be of 33 inches and his age must be 18 to 25 years. The competent Authority to make appointment is Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Assistant Inspector-General/Government Railways Police and Assistant Inspector- General/Provincial Additional Police. The afore-stated physical condition/standard/criteria are condition procedent for the appointment of successful candidates as recruits/Inspectors. This view is completely fulfilled by Rule 12.16 which empowers Superintendents of Police to reject candidate whose standard of physique and intelligence is unsatisfactory, and to send only those candidates for medical examination whom the Superintendent of Police has accepted as being up to the required standard in this respect. It, thus, confers power on Superintendents of Police (not competent authority) of full discretion to assess the physical standards of successful candidates and deny them medical examination. In the face of this rule it can be said that Civil Surgeon/DHO/Medical Officer are not only authorities to measure the height and chest of a candidate and the competent Authority is not bound to accept their opinion/result. It is common ground that the competent Authority as already noted is D.I.-G. The association of Superintendent of Police and health authorities in the task of appointment of Inspectors is of facilitative nature.
Even Superintendent of Police is empowered to reject the candidate on the touchstones of physical standards and intelligence. Seen from the above prospective we are of considered view that it is the competent Authority which has to finally weigh/adjudge physical standard required for appointment of a recruit. No doubt, the role of health authority is of facilitative nature and is of weight and we are clear in our mind that the boards, constituted by the Government of Punjab, comprising D.I.-G./competent Authority/S:P./D.H.O. Were lawful and constituted by Provincial authority/Government of Punjab. Hence, these Boards, exercised their power within the framework of law and legally found that the respondents did not have the required height and so were not qualified to be appointed as recruits/Inspectors. It is significant to note that these Boards designated competent authority, S.S.P. And concerned Medical Officer.
11. The only question now left for consideration as to whether on the facts of the case in hand, the respondents were entitled to relaxation of Rules 12.15 and 12.16. No doubt, under Rule 12.15, the D.I.-G.
Of Police/competent authority is possessed of such power. However, power is strictly circumscribed to a case of special castes and classes which can supply the desirable recruits, whose height does not come up to the prescribed standard. Rule 12.15 is as follows: "12.15.--(1) Recruits shall be not more than 25, or less than 18 years of age, at the time of enrolment, and shall have a minimum height of 5'-7" . And normal chest measurement of 33", with expansion of 1-1/2". These physical standards shall not be relaxed without the general or special sanction of the Deputy Inspector-General. A general reduction of the standard may be allowed by Deputy Inspector-General in the case of special castes or classes, which provide desirable rescruits, but whose general height does not come up to that prescribed. In such cases a standard of chest measurement and general physique shall be fixed, which will permit the enlistment of strong and well-proportioned youths of the class in question.
(2) .............................................................
' Conceptually, the power of relaxation falls within the domain of discretionary jurisdiction of administrative authorities. Before we proceed further to understand its nature, we are tempted to quote saying of a great English Judge Lord Camden: "The discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants; it is always unknown: it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends on Constitution, temper, and passion. At best it is often caprice. In the worst it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature can be liable". State v. Cummings, 36 MO 263, 278. From the above we follow that discretionary jurisdiction is power of administrative authority/Judicial authority to adopt a way or decide a matter according to his own sagacy or prudence and opinion. It is true that the Courts have initiated the role whereby this power has been structured within parameters of fairness.
Nevertheless, exercise of this power rests upon the opinion of Administrative Judge. Briefly speaking it is not dispensable. The power is given on account of complex nature of the jurisdiction. This is almost an odium. What we find is that competent Authority declined to exercise this power and dealt with every successful candidate including respondents with equal treatment. Seen from above spectrum that the action of Government of Punjab in constituting Boards and the exercise taken by them was clearly legal and no exception can be taken to it.
12. For the foregoing reason, we are not able to sustain decisions of the learned Single Judges dated 22-10-1998 and 6-11-1998. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals succeed with the result that the orders passed by the learned Single Judges in Writ Petitions Nos, 7649 of 1998, 19416 of 1998 and 18177 of 1998 are hereby set aside and the afore-noted petitions filed by the respondents are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.