TARIQ MAQSOOD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
Vide Annexure "A", respondent-Commissioner invited applications to fill up the posts of Police Inspectors (BPS-16) in the Police Department. The limitation for age was 26 years on 20-10-1997 for general public end for in service candidates like the petitioner, who claims to be Sub-Inspector of Police, the upper limit was 30 years. Petitioner applied for the post, was issued Roll No.4911 and, it is claimed that petitioner cleared the written examination. On 14-1-1998 the Commissioner informed the petitioner that he has been found over-age by seven years four months and twenty days, after giving him the benefit of police service. The implication being that the petitioner was ineligible for the post. Petitioner claims to have represented against the same but without any success. He has, therefore, lodged this Constitutional petition.
2. Vide order dated 10-2-1998, this Court directed Mr. Muhammad Amin Lone, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, to secure instructions for 19-2-1998. Apparently the case could not be taken up on 19-2-1998. Petitioner, therefore, filed Civil Miscellaneous 3 of 1998 for an order permitting the petitioner to appear in psychological test and interview. The case was taken up in the morning when the learned Assistant Advocate General was directed to make available the record as well as the departmental representative. The case was then taken up after interval. Learned counsel was asked to show the prima facie case before an interim order could be issued in favour of the petitioner. Since respondents were also present and have been heard, this case is being finally disposed of as a Pacca matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure ' B' which contains the policy decisions taken by the Commission under section 7-A of the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978, for regulating the conduct of the Combined Competitive Examination. In particular, Para- 2(b)(v) was relied upon to show that for the persons domiciled in Punjab, who are serving in connection with the affairs of Punjab Government with at least four years' service as such, the upper age limit would be 40 years. The contention is that petitioner being about 37 years of age, had been validly permitted to appear in the examination and further denial by the Commission to interview the petitioner is illegal.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General has placed on record photocopy of the parawise comments alongwith annexures to contend that under substituted rule 12.6(iii) of the Police Rules, 1934, as amended by Notification No. HP-II/15-7/97, dated 20-10-1997:--
"An age limit for recruitment to the post of Inspectors will be 21 to 26 and for in service candidates from Police Department (Executive) 21 to 30 years. "
5. Mr. Naveed Rasul Mirza, learned Additional Advocate-General, who also appeared in the case, pointed out that another Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 23699/97 and 25707/97 have declined relaxation, in similar circumstances.
6. The reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the policy decisions (Annexure 'B') is inappropriate. Para. (a) of this document reads:--
"The examination will be held under the provisions of the Service Rules governing recruitment to posts included in this examination."
Service Rules in this case are Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The policy decisions, therefore, are subject to the Service Rules. Under the Service Rules, upper age limit being 30 years, the decision of respondent Commission is perfectly within the limits of law. However, assuming that the policy decisions are independent of Service Rules, even then the petitioner has no case. Policy decision being general and applicable to all examinations covered by Combined Competitive Examinations will have to yield to the specific rules applicable to Police Inspectors as contained in Punjab Police Rules, 1934. It is settled principle that where the field is covered by general as well as specific instructions/rules, specific will override the general and will be applicable.
7. Petitioner being clearly over-age as noted in the impugned order, is not eligible to be appointed as Police Inspector. Merely because the petitioner was issued the roll number and has passed the written examination, will not operate as a bar against the Commission to deny further participation in the process of examination, on the principle that there cannot be estoppel against law.
8. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
A.A./T-39/L Petition dismissed