2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

K.B. Bhutto for Respondent No.27. A.D. Hotwani for Respondent Nos. 88, 90 and

91. Habibur Rehman for most of the Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th August, 2002. ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, J.‑‑‑In this petition the petitioners have prayed as follows:‑ (1) set aside the appointment of Respondent Nos.5 to 95; (2) direct Respondent No. 1 to invite fresh applications for appointment of Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates from all the persons envisaged under R.8(1)(b) of the Rules as amended; (3) Or in the alternative and without prejudice to above direct that the Provincial Selection Board be reconstituted and interview all the persons who have applied under Rule 8(I)(b) of the Rules as amended and are eligible and recommend all those suitable for the post of Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrate to be appointed in place of Respondent Nos.5 to 95. (4) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit."

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, at the outset, stated that he would only press this petition in respect of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who are the employees of the High Court of Sindh. The respondents are represented by the Additional A.‑G. and the other learned Counsel present on behalf of their respective clients.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners agree that without touching the merits his clients seek relief from this Court to the extent that they may be allowed to apply for the post of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge when such posts become available. He has stated at the bar that by virtue of the fact that his clients have been pursuing this petition since the year 1996 and it has not been disposed of due to no fault of his clients, the bar of age has come in between them for any future appointments. He requests that this Court may consider the question of condoning the age limit since they have been pursuing this petition which has so for not been decided due to no fault of theirs.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. However, Mr. Abbas Ali, Learned Additional A.‑G. has pointed out to this contention that there was no bar on them on applying afresh for the new posts that had been advertised from time to time while pursuing their remedy through this petition.

5. We, as such cannot condone the bar of age as it is the competent authority which is supposed to decide this issue. However, we would observe that the competent authority may keep in mind this aspect whilst processing any application moved by the petitioners that they have been pursuing a legal remedy before this Court and during the course of pursuing such a legal remedy, bar of age is coming against them. Consequently, we would recommend that a lenient view may be taken while deciding the issue of condonation of age. Petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith the listed application in terms of the foregoing observations. H.B.T./I‑71/K Order accordingly.