2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

TARIQ JAVAID, J.

The petitioners are employees in Grade-1,7 presently working with the respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they secured their admissions in Masters degree courses in the U.K., Universities but the respondents have denied them the scholarships, as according to the respondents both of the petitioners have become over aged. However, it is admitted that once they arc promoted to the next grade they shall be entitled for the same under the rules. It is also admitted position that respondent No.3 vide letter dated 17-6-2010 requested the respondent No.2 for relaxation of the upper age limit, which was denied by the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28-6-2010.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were admitted to Master's degree courses in the U.K., Universities even in the last year. They were granted the scholarships but due to the inordinate delay occasioned at the U.K., Consulate their visa applications were not processed within time schedule announced by their respective universities for joining the course, therefore, they were prevented from leaving Pakistan. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the scholarships sanctioned to them during last year be reimbursed for the current year. The petitioners have also prayed for intervention of this Court on compassionate grounds.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has maintained that there is no system or rule to carry forward the amount of scholarships sanctioned to the employees. If the scholarship is not used in a financial year it lapses and the case of the applicant has to be reconsidered under the rules. Since the petitioners have crossed the upper age limit and relaxation has already been denied by the competent authority the respondents were not in a position to grant them the scholarships. It was also argued that the amounts sanctioned for the grant of scholarships have already been allocated to the deserving candidates, therefore, the respondents are not left with funds to reimburse the petitioners even if this petition is allowed.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. The applications were invited under Punjab Capacity Building Program 2010-2011 by the Government of Punjab, Punjab Resources Management Program (PRMP) PMU, Planning and Development Department from eligible officers, Civil Servants (regular employees of Government of Punjab) for award of limited number of scholarships for one year Masters Degree Programs Session 2010-2011 (Fall) in specified disciplines to be pursued in identified Universities. The petitioners, who were otherwise qualified in all respects could not meet the requirement of upper age limit fixed in the eligibility criteria, which is as follows:

For BS 17 officers 38 years. For BS 18 officers 45 years. For BS-19 officers 52 years.

6. The facts are admitted by the parties. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any breach of obligation nor he has shown any rule whereunder it could be said that the scholarship granted to the petitioners ought to have been carried forward. The scholarships were awarded to them but unfortunately those lapsed, it may very well be a case of sympathy for the petitioners, but unfortunately there is no reason for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, specifically in the circumstances wherein the respondents admit that the petitioners shall still have a chance to apply for the scholarship on their promotion to BS-18. Therefore, the denial does not seem to be an outright denial.

7. However, is observed that the disbursement of said scholarships has not been shown to be made under a well-considered policy of the Provincial Government. None of the parties has been able to produce the policy, in absence whereof it is observed that it needs to be reconsidered by the Provincial Government.

8. As its name suggests that it is a Capacity Building Program, then it is imperative for the framers of the policy to keep in mind the best utility of the public funds. Granting scholarships to experienced officers, that too, nearing the age of superannuation, out of public funds is not likely to enhance the capability and build sustainable capacity. The employees, who are already in age brackets 45 to 52 almost invariably tend to have rigid ideas and may not have capacity to learn new techniques. By that time due to their long experience and practice, they more often than not show resistance to the new ideas which ostensibly appear to conflict with their own notions. They feel more comfortable with their past practice, even though it does not yield the desired results rather than trying new techniques developed by the advanced countries. The disbursement of these scholarships to younger brighter candidates, who had left their studies in the recent past are bound to ensure better results. Such stipends must be used for relatively fresh graduates as they have potential to learn, therefore, the preference should be for the younger candidates, who should on completion of their master's degree be used as Master Trainers for the training of rest of the department. An employee nearing the age of superannuation is not likely to improve the capacity. The sustainable capacity building requires that the scholarships may be disbursed in such a manner that maximum utility is got out of the money used from the public exchequer. However, this order shall not be applicable to the scholarships already awarded for year 2010-2011.

9. With above observations, this petition is dismissed in limine. M.H. /T-411L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.