1990 PLP 1475 (MLD)

7. The legislative provisions requiring interpretation are recent and according to Mr. Riaz Ahmad Khan the controversy being raised is not covered by any precedent. Therefore, this Court called upon Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate to act as amicus curiae to assist this Court in the interpretation of newly‑added Rules 2 and 3 to Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976, hereinafter to be referred as the Rules, 1976. The learned amicus curiae submitted that this is a beneficial legislation. The rule of interpretation is that benevolent interpretation is to be given to a beneficial legislation, of course without violence to the statute. In this behalf, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General, Eastern Circle (EP), Dacca and another v. Muhammad Hashim P L D 1978 SC

61. It is further argued that the apprehension of the respondent that if the relaxation is given on more than one score then in certain cases candidates almost nearing the age of superannuation, might also be eligible, is misconceived. The submission is that if one candidate belongs to Scheduled Castes and at the same time he hails from backward area then he will enjoy one relaxation, which is beneficial. It is added that practically for both these categories the relaxation is only 3 years. The arguments are concluded with the submission that if a candidate is a Government servant with four years service then for him prescribed age is 35 years. It is without any benefit of relaxation.

8. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned amicus curiae. The examination is being held under West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964. There can be following two categories of candidates, who take the examination as per these rules:‑‑ Firstly, candidates seeking initial recruitment or Government servants with less than four years service, for them the upper age limit is 28 years; and Secondly, Government servants, who have at least 4 years service to their credit. For them the upper age limit is 35 years. These rules are supplemented by Rules of 1976, which were amended vide notification dated 25‑3‑1989, as already noted, to include within their fold disabled persons. The definition of the disabled person has been added as sub- rule (iii) Rule 2, which reads as under:‑‑ "(iii) Disabled person" means a person who, on account of injury, disease or congenital deformity, is handicapped for undertaking any gainful profession or employment in order to earn his livelihood, and includes a person who is blind, deaf, physically handicapped or mentally retarded: Provided that only such disabled persons should be eligible to be considered for job reserved for disabled persons, who are duly registered with the Employment Exchange of the area and have been declared to be disabled and fit for work of a particular job by the Provincial Council as defined in section 5 of Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981." While clause (vi) has been added to Rule

3. The same reads as under:‑‑ "(vi) In case of a disabled person as defined in rule 2(iii) above the maximum upper age limit prescribed in the Service/Recruitment Rules, for appointment to a post, shall be raised by 10 years." The key words on which the fate of this petition hangs is `maximum upper age limit prescribed in the Service/Recruitment Rules'. This amendment was also reflected in the notification dated 20‑10‑1989 of the Punjab Public Service Commission whereby the procedure, syllabus and conditions of admission to the posts of Extra Assistant Commissioners etc. were notified. In order to find out the prescribed age we have to refer to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1964, which reads as under:‑‑ "

6. Age‑‑(1) No person shall be appointed to the Service by initial recruitment who is below 28 years or above 35 years of age‑‑ (a) ........................... (b) .. . Provided that‑‑ (i) for a period of ten years from the coming into force of these rules, the upper age limit in the case of candidates from Scheduled Castes and Under‑Developed Areas shall be 28 years. (ii) (iii) in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation, who are domiciled in West Pakistan, and persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Province of West Pakistan, with at least four years service as such, the upper age limit shall be thirty‑five years:' It is clear from the clause (i) and proviso (iii) that prescribed age limit by initial recruitment is 28 years while for the Government servant with four years service it is 35 years. The petitioner is admittedly a Government servant, who has more than 4 years service to his credit, therefore, in his case prescribed upper age will be 35 years and not 28 years. He is entitled to relaxation of 10 years in view of the clear provisions of amended Rules of 1976 as to `disabled persons'. This way the petitioner will not be having double relaxation because as a Government servant he is not claiming any relaxation under the Rules of 1976. It is in fact the prescribed upper age limit for the candidates appearing from second category i.e. Government servants, with four years of service.

9. The confusion may be due to overlapping of the provisions of Rules 1964 and Rules of 1976. The proviso (i) relating to the candidate, belonging. to Scheduled Castes and Under Developed areas was valid only for 10 years. This proviso became a dead letter on 9‑12‑1974. This necessitated promulgation of Rules of 1976. The same covered cases of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Under‑Developed areas and another category of disabled persons was added, as already noted, in March, 1989. The other provisos (ii) and (iii) to Rule 6 remained intact and part and parcel of the Rules of 1964. Therefore, the `prescribed' age of a candidate is to be determined under Rule 6 of Rules, 1964 while the relaxation is governed by Rules, 1976 as amended. Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate has rightly referred to the golden rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that beneficial legislation is to be interpreted benevolently as far as possible. However, in this case there is no confusion or ambiguity at all to be resolved on the touchstone the above rule of interpretation.

10. Before parting with the judgment it is recorded that this Court is highly thankful to Syed Jamshed Ali, amicus curiae as well as to the learned counsel for the parties and Mr. Riaz Ahmad Khan, Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission for their assistance in resolving the legal controversy.

11. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the respondent is declared illegal. However, there is no order as to costs. M.B.A./I-186/L Petition accepted.