' Through this single Order I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1314/2002, 1714/2002, 1477/2002, 1318/2002 and 1574/2002, as all these petitions are arising out of common question of law and fact.
With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, all these cases are being treated as "Pacca" cases.
2. Brief facts of all these cases are that the petitioners in all these cases were initially appointed as Constable on various dates in District of Multan. All of them qualified their exam for being placed on List-A. Since the exam for list-A was delayed, therefore, all the petitioners were given two years' age relaxation for appearance in the said examination by the S.S.P., Multan. It is also submitted that since 1999, no exam was held for List-A & List-B/1, till 6-2-2002, when for the first time, after 1999 examination of List-B/1 was held, in which the petitioners were allowed to participate. All the petitioners cleared the said written examination and were called upon for interview on 8-2-2002.
On 8-2-2002, petitioners appeared before the S.S.P. For interview but the same was refused on the ground that they have already crossed the prescribed age limit of 33 years under Rule 13.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, hence this petition.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on the ground of delay in holding the Examination for List-A, the petitioners were earlier granted two years' age relaxation, therefore, on the same principle since their earlier examination of List-A, was delayed and they were given two years age relaxation, therefore, they are entitled to further age relaxation for qualifying B-1 examination. To substantiate his this contention, he has referred to a letter issued by the S.S.P., Multan dated 25-2-2002, according to which all Constables, otherwise eligible for List-A were allowed to participate in the examination provided they have not crossed the age limit of 32 years.
Although, admittedly, the normal age for such examination is 30 years. With reference to a Standing Order No,8 of 2001, issued by the Inspector General of Police, it is contended that the Respondent No,1 is required to hold examination for maintaining List-B/1 in first week of February each year. Non-holding of, such examination in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 has materially effected the rights of the petitioners due to which, they have become over-age, having no fault on their part. He has also referred to a letter dated 9-6-1998, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Multan addressed to all S.S.Ps. In the Range, directing them to hold such examination regularly, to indicate that omission on the part of Respondent No,1, to hold such examination regularly, had resulted in miscarriage of rights of the petitioners. It is finally contended that age relaxation can be granted by the S.S.P., Multan as he has quoted the case of Muhammad Ashraf, Constable No,1466 of Multan, to whom one year's age relaxation was given vide order dated 29-10- 1990. It is thus contended that under Rule 13.20 of the Police Rules 1934, keeping in view of hardship, cases of the petitioners age could be relaxed in their cases.
4. It is contended by the learned A.A-G that prior to the issuance of Standing Order No,8 of 2001, through a directive of DIG, Multan Range. Multan District was allocated only 30 seats for maintaining the list of Constables for list B/1 and thereafter, through Standing Order No,8 of 2001, the number of constables to be maintained on list B/1, was prescribed as 3% of the total strength of constables in a District. He has placed on record the detail of Constables on List-B/1 from year 1999 to 1-12-2001. According to this list in the year 1999, 94 Constables were on List B/1 out of them were sent on course. On 14-2-2000 the member was 87 as same Constables were transferred from other Districts to Multan. Out of these 87, were sent to lower course-but the number still increased to 88 on 8-8-2000, due to further transfers of Constables from other Districts, when 14 Constables were sent to lower course but still on 9-7-2001 the number remained 77 when 11 Constables were sent to lower course but instead of decreasing the number on 1-12-2001, the number increased to 84 when 18 Constables were sent on lower course. The final resume of this variation is that at the time when this examination was held on 6-2-2002, the available strength of List-B/1 was 66. It is further submitted that total strength of the Police Constables in the Multan District is 2679 and according to Standing Order No,8 of 2001, the allocation was only of 3% for Multan District, therefore, no examination could have been held. After the issuance of the above referred standing order, the examination was rightly held in the year 2002. So far as the question of relaxation of age is concerned, it is contended that under Rule 13.20, Inspector General of Police is authorised to relax the prescribed age limit but I.C. Of Police has not relaxed the age in any case.
5. I have considerd the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the year 1999, the respondents were maintaining 94 Constables, qualified in B-1 Examination, likewise, in the year 2000 and 2001 as well they were having a strength of more than 30. Meaning thereby, that according to their own case, Respondent No,1 was to maintain maximum of 30 Constables on list-B-1. He was not following the instructions of the D.I.G. As contended by the learned A.A.-G., A policy framed by the respondents was being flouted by themselves cannot have binding effect on others. The petitioners were earlier allowed two years' age relaxation by the S.S.P., Multan, considering the Departmental lapse for not holding the examination in time. Likewise, in the present case as well for at lease three years no examination for list B/1 was held by the respondents, which was otherwise required to be held each year in the first week of February. If a candidate (constable) is, otherwise, qualified in an examination, he cannot be denied his right to compete. However, under rule 13.7 it is the prerogative of the D.I.G. To choose out of that list as to who is to be sent for the course, keeping in view the seniority in age among the qualified B/1 constables. But otherwise qualified constables cannot be refused a right to compete who qualify for B/1 Examination. The omission of the respondents for not holding the examination every year has undoubtedly deprived the petitioners of their right of fair competition. They have become over age not because of any lapse on their part but on the part of Respondent No,1, for which they should not suffer.
7. For what has been stated above, these writ petitions are allowed. The competent authority in the cases of the petitioners with respect to relaxation of age shall pass appropriate orders with respect to the individual case of every petitioner. The petitioners shall be interviewed if they have already passed their written examination held on 6-2-2002. If they qualify in the interview, their names shall be placed on List-B/1.
8. Disposed of No order as to costs.