MAJID ALI Versus PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

ORDER

MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.--- Through instant petition, Majid Ali, the petitioner, seeks Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, praying that:--

"On acceptance of this Writ Petition, action and inaction of the respondents against the petitioner, the objection of respondents Nos.1 and 2 regarding the petitioner being under age for the said post, may kindly be declared illegal and of no legal effect and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to conduct interview of the petitioner."

2. In essence, the grievance of petitioner is that in pursuance of advertisement published for the posts of "Sub-Engineer" by the respondents, he applied to the same on prescribe form but after scrutinizing his documents etc., by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, he was called for ability test which he passed but even then he was not called for interview on the ground of being underage.

3. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner heard in motion and material available on file perused.

4. Perusal of file reveals that 44 posts of "Sub-Engineer" were advertised vide advertisement No.1 on 1.1.2015 by the respondents, for which the age limit for the post was prescribed as 21 to 30 years relevant posts, with all particulars is mentioned at Serial No.70 of the said advertisement, which is reproduced below:-

"Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission, -- dated 1.1.2015.

1.

2.

70. Forty Four (44) Posts of Sub-Engineers Civil in Local Government and Rural Development Department.

QUALIFICATION : (a) Secondary School Certificate or equivalent qualification from a recognize board and

(b) Three years course Diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognized institute.

Age Limit. 21 to 30 years.

..

..

..

5. As per available record the petitioner has the requisite academic qualification but as per his academic certificates, his date of birth is 15.8.1995, while the applications for said posts were invited upto 30.1.2015 and for candidates applying from abroad upto 13.2.2015. So till closing date of submission of applications, the petitioner was below the age of 21 years, mentioned in the terms and conditions for the post of "Sub-Engineer" enumerated on Serial No.70 of the advertisement by the respondents which every candidate was bound to qualify. Granting permission to petitioner at this stage would amount to opening of a Pandora box and then every person having not qualified on the age factor, would approach the Courts which is hit by and contrary to the principles of law "raison d'etre". In this respect wisdom is derived from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.54-Q of 2009 and others CPs reported as Gul Jan v. Naik Muhammad (PLD 2012 SC 421), relevant enunciated principles merits reference which runs as under:-

"The raison d'tere' or object of all laws is to regulate the affairs of a society in uniformity and through such uniformity to establish a just order. However, when in order to achieve and dispense justice in individual cases exceptions are contrived or laws are disregarded that promotes confusion and breeds anarchy which, at the end of the road, disturbs social harmony and contributes towards injustice. It is particularly for this reason that the Star Chamber, a Court of equity, was abolished in England because equity had started varying with the size of the Chancellor's foot Interestingly in appeals and the petitions for leave to appeal in hand highlight the same phenomenon as the precedent cases attracted thereto often underscore an eagerness to dispense justice while seemingly outrunning the necessity of adhering to the Constitutional and legal mandates and what has followed is nothing but chaos and confusion."

6. So what has been mentioned in the terms and conditions in the advertisement are liable to be fulfilled. Since the petitioner was lacking to fulfill the relevant age criteria limit therefore, he was rightly not called for Interview by the respondents. Consequently, the grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner, are not worth consideration. Thus the instant petition being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine along with Interim Relief.

WA/292/P Petition dismissed.