1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Age relaxation--Relaxation in upper age limit, held, was in the discretion of Government and could not be claimed as of right--Age relaxation could be granted in individual and hardship cases. (c) Civil service

Promotion--Selection--Record showing that four vacancies of Naib-Tehsildar had occurred 10/12 years before selection of appellant on regular basis but he was not promoted due to his being an ad hoc appointee--Had Selection Committee been constituted in time appellant could have been regularised much earlier and no question of age relaxation also would have arisen--Case of appellant being a hardship case required reconsideration by Government--Case was thus remanded for said purpose. Ghulam Naqshband for Appellant (in both the Appeals). Muhammad Latif Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondents No.2 and 3 (in Appeal No. 50 of 1989). Syed Arif Shah, Special Government Pleader for Respondents (in Appeal No. 43 of 1989). SAHIBZADA MUHAMMAD FARIDUN KHAN (MEMBER).--This judgment will dispose off Appeals Nos.43 of 1989 and 50 of 1989 as common question of Law and fact is involved in both the appeals. Farman Ilahi was appointed field Kanungo in 1968. He qualified "Kanungo Departmental Examination" on 30-7-1973. The appellant was promoted officiating Naib Tehsildar as stop gap arrangement on 8-11-1976 who later on qualified the prescribed examination of Naib-Tehsildar held in January, 1982. He served as Naib-Tehsildar on ad -hoc basis for more than 12 years. During the period of about 11 years commencing from 1979 till 1988 no Departmental Selection Committee was constituted to regularise his service. It was only in 1988 that a Departmental Selection Committee was constituted and selection of the appellant was ordered on regular basis on 19-9-1988 and that too subject to relaxation of age condition by the Government. Respondent No.3 recommended relaxation in the upper age limit in favour of the appellant to respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 referred the matter to respondent No.1 through the Services and General Administration Department. The Services and General Administration declined to accord relaxation. Khaista Khan was promoted as Kanungo in 1978. He qualified for the post of Naib-Tehsildar by passing the prescribed departmental examination in 1981. The appellant working as Kanungo was promoted as Canal Naib-Tehsildar purely on temporary basis on 17-3-1983, but he was not ready to accept his posting as Canal Naib-Tehsildar as such his promotion order was cancelled on 27-3-1983. He was appointed purely on temporary basis as stop-gap arrangement to act as Naib-Tehsildar on 25-8-1988, when he was already overage by 2 years and 10 months. The departmental selection committee considered the appellant suitable for promotion/appointment as Naib-Tehsildar and recommended him for regular appointment subject to vacancy and relaxation of age condition by the Government on 19-9-1988. We have heard arguments both of the counsel for the appellants and Special Government Pleaders. Examined the relevant record and the rules. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant Farman Ilahi was working on the job as Naib-Tehsildar for more than 12 years on ad hoc basis. But this was a stop-gap arrangement and cannot establish entitlement of the appellant for his regular appointment to the post unless he fulfils the required conditions prescribed under the rules. We also agree that the Departmental Selection Committee should have been constituted much earlier but it is too late now to' be adjudicated upon. Relaxation in the upper age limit is discretion of the Government and cannot be claimed as of right. However, under Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 "Relaxation could be granted to individuals in hardship cases". From the record produced by the Government in the Services and General Administration Department it is clear that the four vacancies had occurred 10/12 years before selection of the appellants on regular basis on 19-9-1988. If the Selection Committee had been constituted in time the appellants would have been regularised much earlier, and the question of age relaxation would not have arisen. In view of this situation we feel that the cases of both the appellants are hardship cases and require re consideration by the Government. The cases are remanded for reconsideration. Parties are left to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room. M.Y.H./135/Sr.N Cases remanded.