' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition Nos.8957 of 1995 and Writ Petition 8958 of 1995 in which common question's of law and facts are involved.
2. The petitioner has challenged appointment of respondents 4 to 8 as Junior Clerks and has sought a direction against respondents 1 to 3 for determining the petitioner's eligibility afresh in accordance with the law and the recruitment policy of the Government of the Punjab.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 1-12-1994 Government of the Punjab advertised 8 posts of Junior Clerks to be appointed in the office of the Chairman, Punjab Provincial Transport Authority. The applications were to be submitted before the Secretary of the Authority till 15-12-1994.
Later the date was extended for all posts from B.S.1 to B.S.15 up to 23-2-1995. About 158 candidates applied for the posts of Junior Clerks out of whom 34 candidates including the petitioner, were called for interview/test before the Departmental Selection Committee on 22-3-1995. After the interviews/tests, the Committee recommended the names of respondents 4 to 8 and 3 others namely Arif Majeed, Muhammad Idrees and Muhammad Tufail. The petitioner was shown to have failed in the typing test and for that reason his name was not recommended.
4. The petitioner's learned counsel has strenuously urged that on 22-3-1995 neither any written test was held nor respondents 4 to 8 had appeared in the interview/typing test and were appointed at the behest of Mr. Ghulam Dastgir Lak, the then Transport Minister; that Ghulam Muhammad, respondent No,5 and Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No,6 were not eligible to be appointed and for that reason one of them namely Ghulam Muhammad, respondent No,5 has already been removed; that respondent No,6 is a third divisioner and was over age by 4 years and was wrongly given 55 marks instead of 40; that the age limit was 18 to 25 years but Muhammad Iqbal was aged about 34 years; that the maximum relaxation of age could have been for 5 years, therefore, there was no legal justification to appoint Muhammad Iqbal respondent No,6 and that although the interviews were shown to have been held on 22-3-1995, order for postings and transfers of respondents 4 to 8 were made on the same day.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.A.-G. And the learned counsel for the private respondents submit that the petitioner having failed in all important typing test had no locus standi to challenge appointment of respondents 4 to 8; that the petitioner's learned counsel is arguing against the facts stated. In his own petition; that in para 3 of the petition it has been stated that call letters were issued for interviews to be held on 22-3-1995 and that respondents 1 to 3 had interviewed the candidates including the 1 petitioner and respondents 4 to 8; that age limit of respondent No,6 was relaxed by the competent authority and that no illegality was committed in the appointments of respondents 4 to 8.
6. There is considerable force in the arguments raised by the learned A.A.-G. And learned counsel for the private respondents. The petitioner has clearly stated in para. 3 of the writ petition that respondents 1 to 3 had issued call letters for the interviews for 22-3-1995 and that the candidates including the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8 were interviewed on the said date. After this admission, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner's learned counsel to urge that no interviews/tests were held on 22-3-1995. The record shows that Tariq Latif (writ petitioner in Writ Petition No,8957 of 1995) and Shahid Latif (writ petitioner in Writ Petition 8958 of 1995) could not clear the typing test. The required number of words to judge typing efficiency was 25 words per minute but Tariq Latif could type only 6 words in one minute while Shahid Latif only 8 words per minute. Needless to mention that primarily a Junior Clerk has to do typing work and if he does not come up to the required standard then he cannot be appointed to the post. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to assail to validity of appointments of respondents 4 to 8. As regards the age of respondent No,6, at the time of submission of his application on 11-12-1994, his age was 33 years and 10 months. Under the recruitment policy the requisite maximum age limit was up to 25 years. The Government of Punjab had granted general relaxation qua the upper age limit vide Letter No,SORI (S&GAD)9-3/92, dated 9-5-1994 in respect of applicants for all posts from B.S.1 to B.S.15. It was also mentioned therein that relaxation beyond 5 years by the competent authority would be subject to mentioning the same in the advertisement. This notification held the field at the relevant. Therefore, the maximum age limit fixed in the recruitment policy announced on 23-2-1994 stood extended by the General relaxation in the upper age limit up to 30 years qua respondent No,6. The competent authority further granted relaxation of 5 years to respondent No,6 vide order, dated 21-3-1995. It may be mentioned that in the advertisement published on 1-12-1994 it was mentioned at the end that the recruitment would be made in accordance with the existing recruitment policy. As mentioned above, the Government had granted 5 years relaxation qua the upper age limit for recruitment to posts in B.S.1 to B.S. 15 leaving it open to the competent authority to grant further relaxation of 5 years, therefore, no illegality was committed in the matter of appointment of respondent No,6.
7. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed.