2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑‑S.8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 25 & 212(3)‑‑ Promotion‑‑‑Relaxation in upper age limit‑‑‑Discrimination, plea of‑‑ Applicability‑‑‑Grievance of civil servant was that he was refused relaxation in upper age limit whereby he was not promoted‑‑ Departmental representation as well as appeal before Service Tribunal were dismissed‑‑‑Plea raised by the civil servant was that he had been discriminated as civil servants junior to him were granted such relaxation and were promoted‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Matter concerning relaxation in upper age limit exclusively fell within the jurisdictional domain and competency of the authorities who could not be compelled to act in a particular manner to grant the relaxation‑‑‑Relaxation could be granted in hardship cases but the case of the civil servant did not fall within such category in view of blemished and unsatisfactory record of his service‑‑ Authorities had granted relaxation to those civil servants who were having unblemished record of service, therefore, the plea of discrimination was without merit‑‑‑Civil servant had no legal right to demand such relaxation‑‑‑Authorities had not exercised the discretion in a capricious or arbitrary manner warranting any interference‑‑‑Judgment passed by Punjab Service Tribunal being well based and free from‑.any illegality could not be reversed without any cogent reasoning which was lacking in the case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Ehsan Ullah Lilla, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2003. 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 merit less 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. M.H./A-12/S. Petition dismissed