Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.1794/2015

(Nabid Baig Versus Chairman, PPSC Lahore etc.)

JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing

24.05.2016

Petitioner by:

M/s Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal and Sarfraz

Ahmad Chadhar, Advocates.

Respondent No.5 by:

Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Kiani, Advocate.

State by:

Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Satti, Assistant

Advocate General with Hafiz Arshad
Mahmood, Law Officer and Ahmad Saif
Ullah Khan, Assistant Director (Legal), AntiCorruption Establishment Rawalpindi.

Atir Mahmood, J. Through this constitutional petition under

Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner
seeks direction to the respondents to give 3 years relaxation in lower
age limit and allow the petitioner to appear in the test/examination for
the post of Deputy Director Technical (BPS-18) in Anti-Corruption
Establishment Department (ACE) advertised by the Punjab Public
Service Commission. He also seeks direction to the respondents to
amend the Anti Corruption Establishment Service Rules, 2007 for the
post of Deputy Director Technical (BS-18) and to fix the minimum
age for the post of Deputy Director Technical as 28 years.
2.

The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the

petitioner has served on a number of key posts such as Assistant

Director (Engineering) and Project Director and while his posting in
F.I.A., he has successfully pointed out embezzlements of millions of
rupees as well as irregularities committed in award of the projects;
that the petitioner fulfills all the requirements of the post of Deputy
Director (Technical) except condition of lower age limit; that the

Writ Petition No.1794/2015

condition of lower age limit of 35 years is harsh and is also not in line
with that of other post in the same grade in the ACE such as Deputy
Director I.T. (BS-18) where the prescribed age limit is 28 to 35 years;
that imposing condition of lesser age for the post of Deputy Director
(Technical) is against fundamental right of the petitioner who
otherwise is eligible for the post; that the said condition is against law
and is discriminatory to the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition be
allowed, the said condition be waived off and the petitioner be given
relaxation of 3 years lower age limit.
3.

On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned

counsel for respondent No.5 has vehemently opposed this writ petition
mainly on the grounds that the impugned condition of lower age limit
is not discriminatory to the petitioner as it applies to all the
prospective candidates and this is a policy matter wherein the courts
should not interfere with unless fundamental rights of the citizens are
infringed which could not be established by the petitioner.
4.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

5.

Admittedly, the Punjab Public Service Commission through an

advertisement sought for applications for the post of Deputy Director

(Technical) in the ACE. The petitioner along with others applied for
the said post. There was a specific condition regarding age limit in the
advertisement which is reproduced below:
2.

AGE:
35 to 45 + 5 years: 50 years for Male Candidates
across the board, age relaxation is admissible as
prescribed by S&GAD No. Notification No.DS
(O&M) 5-3/2004/Contract (MF) dated 29.12.2004
on 29-06-2015.
(Underline is mine)

Perusal of above clearly reveals that while advertising the post, a

condition regarding minimum age limit of 35 years was imposed upon

Writ Petition No.1794/2015

all the prospective candidates. The said condition was not put upon
the petitioner but upon all those who desire to compete for the said
position. Each and every prospective candidate as well as the
respondent departments may be bound by the conditions mentioned in
the advertisement. The petitioner was undeniably aged about 31
years on the closing date of applications, therefore, he being underage
could not apply for the said post as he was ineligible for the said post
in view of the said condition of age limit of 35 to 45 years. However,
relaxation of age is the prerogative of the competent authority which
can be exercised by the Authority in accordance with the rules and
regulations framed for the purpose but it can not be claimed by a
candidate as that of a vested right.
6.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that for

another post, i.e. Deputy Director I.T. (BS-18) in the ACE, the age
limit has been prescribed as 28 to 35 years, as such, the condition of
age limit for the post of Deputy Director (Technical) be also dragged
down to the level of 28 years so that the petitioner may become
eligible for the said post. Rules for every post are framed on the
recommendations of the Service Rules Committee with the approval
of the Chief Minister/Competent Authority under Section 23 of the
Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The rules for the post of Deputy
Director (Technical) were also framed on the recommendations of
ACE by adopting the said procedure. The minimum age limit in
different Service Rules is prescribed keeping in view the required
maturity of the person for a particular job. The posts of Deputy
Director (IT) and Deputy Director (Technical) are different from each
other with regard to their functions/responsibilities/duties, as such,
they cannot be treated in one and the same way. Even otherwise, it is
the prerogative of the concerned department to frame rules, relax or
otherwise some condition imposed in accordance with law but none
can claim it as a matter of right. Furthermore, there is also a post of
Deputy Director Research Development & Training (BS-18) which

Writ Petition No.1794/2015

also entails the age limit of 35 to 45 years which is the same as for the
post of Deputy Director (Technical). The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner lacks force which is accordingly discarded.
7.

The other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the fixation of minimum age limit is against fundamental rights of the

petitioner being citizen of Pakistan ensured by the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Discrimination means treatment
or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a
person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that
person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual
merit. This includes treatment of an individual or group, based on
their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social
category, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually
treated. In this case, the age limit has been fixed for all the prospective
candidates of the post in question but no specific condition, which is
not for other candidates, has been put upon the petitioner. As such,
there is no discrimination being committed with the petitioner by
imposing the said age condition which is undisputedly for all the
candidates including the petitioner.
8.

Furthermore, it is the job of the experts in the relevant filed to

frame policies, rules, regulations etc. and the courts should ordinarily
not interfere with the policies of the government unless there is some
gross violation of fundamental rights of the citizens which could not
be established by the petitioner. This Court cannot substitute the
policy of the government with its own nor can devise a new formula
for advantage of one person but disadvantageous to the rest. This
Court cannot direct the respondents, as prayed for by the petitioner, to
reduce the age limit of the candidates for benefit of the petitioner
which may be disadvantage to rest of the candidates. Needless to
observe that the petitioner has still opportunity to compete for the post
of Deputy Director (Technical) when he attains the required age of 35
years. The impugned condition does not infringe fundamental right of

Writ Petition No.1794/2015

the petitioner nor it is discrimination with the petitioner in any

manner. Reliance is placed on the dictums laid down by the apex
court in case titled Punjab Public Service Commission and another
Vs. Mst. Aisha Nawaz and others (2011 SCMR 1602).
9.

For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is bereft

of any merit. Hence, the same is dismissed.

(ATIR MAHMOOD)
Judge
Akram*
Approved for reporting.

Judge