' JAVED IQBAL, J---Pursuant to F.I.R. Got lodged under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979 read with section 294 P.P.C. At Police station Hujra, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which culminated into his dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed but the Inspector General of Police while exercising his revisional jurisdiction converted the penalty of dismissal from service to that of reduction in rank vide order dated 7-6- 1994. The said penalty was also set aside by learned Punjab Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 2-5-2000. During the intervening period a few Constables, junior to the petitioner, were selected for Intermediate Class and subsequently after qualifying it promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. The petitioner moved an application to get his upper age limit relaxed which was turned down by the Inspector General of Police vide order dated 3-10-1995.
2. Heard. Mr. Ehsan Ullah Lilla, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner whose prime contention is that after acceptance of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal his nomination could not have been refused for Intermediate Class merely on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit. It is also argued that relaxation was awarded to some officials and petitioner has been discriminated.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The judgment impugned has been perused carefully. The matter concerning relaxation in upper age limit exclusively falls within the jurisdictional domain and competency of the Inspector General of Police who by no stretch of imagination could be compelled to act in a particular manner and grant relaxation in upper age limit. We are conscious of the fact that relaxation could be granted in hardship cases but the case of petitioner does not fall within such category in view of blemished and unsatisfactory record of his service.
4. We have also adverted to the plea of discrimination which appears to be meritless and relaxation has been granted to those who were having unblemished-record of service. The petitioner has absolutely no legal right to demand such a relaxation. The Inspector General of Police has not exercised its discretion in a capricious or an arbitrary manner warranting any interference. The judgment impugned being well based and free from any illegality cannot be reversed without any cogent reasoning which is badly lacking in this case. No question of law of pubic importance is involved in the matter persuading us to grant leave to appeal. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.