1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KH. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF (MEMBER).--Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants were posted at different stations and posts in District Multan. The year 1978 the appellants alongwith 42 others sat for the competitive examination held on 11-4-1978 for admission to list B-I in accordance with the Police Rules. The appellants duly qualified the necessary competitive examination and were admitted to list B-I but the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan scrapped the result of examination on the ground that some mal practices have been committed and removed their names from the list of B-I. At the time of examination the appellants were below 33 years of age and were entitled to be sent to the Lower School Course. One Muhammad Zafar lqbal, Constable No. 1301 made a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore against removal of his name from the List B-I which was rejected and he went in revision, before the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore accepted the appeal of Mr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and made the following observations: - "The name of the H.C. was entered in the List B-I on basis of competitive examination for the list. The petitioner had qualified according to the comments of S.P. The said examination was scrapped owing to mal-practices by some other candidates, with the result that the name of the petitioner was also removed from List B-I. There has been no B-I examination for the following three years and the petitioner became over-age for the Lower School Course. He looks to be a smart and ambitious young man and has been punished for no fault on his part. I feel that it is a case of hardship. Under the powers vesting in me vide Rule 12 of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, I accept the petition and condone the upper age limit in case of the petitioner to enable him to go for Lower School Course during coming session." The appellants case, which was identical with that of Muhammad Iqbal Zafar was rejected by the departmental authorities and in this a discrimination was meted out to the appellants. Eight other Constables namely Alamdar Hussain, Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Mushtaq, Haq Nawaz, Muhammad Munir Javaid Mukhtar, Mushtaq Ahmad No. 606 and Mushtaq Ahmad No. 947 were also rejected by the departmental authorities. They went in appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore but their appeals and representations were rejected. They invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by filing an Appeal Case No. 193/103 of 1985. Their appeals were almost accepted and their case was recommended to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore for treating the appellants on the same footing as that of Muhammad Zafar Iqbal. The relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal is reproduced hereunder:- "

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order is discriminatory and is without jurisdiction, on the ground that case of appellants was identical with that of Muhammad Zafar lqbal who had been granted condonation in upper age limit to enable him to go for Lower School by order of respondent No. 1 dated 30-1-1984. It has been forcefully argued that Zafar Iqbal had taken competitive examination alongwith the appellants and on the basis of that result, was admitted to List B-I alongwith the appellants on 12-4-1978. The said list stood cancelled by further orders of the D.I.-G. Police dated 5-8-1978. He had also become overage like the appellants and the consideration, which weighed with respondent No. 1 for condoning the Upper Age Limit in case of the said Muhammad Zafar Iqbal fully applied to the case of the appellants and they were entitled under the law to be treated equally and entitled to the same benefits as extended to Muhammad Zafar Iqbal. He has cited the case of Ashfaq Ahmed v. I.-G. Police on the point of discrimination. As the said list stood cancelled by further orders of D.I.-G., dated 30-7-1978, the appellants became overage during this period. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the order of the D.I: G. Police, dated 30-7-1978, directing the cancellation of List B-I based on competitive examination held on 11-4-1978, as without jurisdiction because he has no power under Rule 13.10(I) to cancel the result of competitive examination and List B-I after it has taken legal effect and was in existence for a couple of months. He has argued that principle of locus poenitentiae was fully applicable in this case.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the matter of relaxation of age is prerogative only available with the learned I: G. Police and the use of his discretion cannot be challenged.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and we have no dispute with the contention of the learned Deputy District Attorney that relaxation of age limit is absolutely a discretionary matter which is prerogative of the learned I: G. Police Punjab and no body can claim it as a matter of right. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case and the decision taken by the authority in the case of Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, we recommend that the case of the appellants be also considered if it is found identical with the case of Zafar lqbal and if they are not given the same treatment so given to Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, this would be a case of discrimination and against the judgment of their Lordships of Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Ashfaq Ahmed v. I.-G.P. With these recomendations the appeal is disposed of accordingly." The appellants have sought relief from this Tribunal on the same footing as that granted to others.

2. We have gone through the record of this case. The case of the appellants is identical with the above-mentioned constables who have been allowed relief from this Tribunal. Similarly the appellants' case is at par with Muhammad Zafar lqbal who was allowed relief by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. We also recommend to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore for treating the appellants at par with others as observed by us in our above mentioned judgment No, 1983/103 of 1985--Alamdar Hussain and seven others v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and two others. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. AA./238/Sr. P Order accordingly.