GHULAM GHOUS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Higher Education Department R

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GHULAM GHOUS VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Higher Education Department R.3(v)---Government College University Faisalabad Ordinance (LXX of 2002), S.14---Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, R.2(c)---Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.23---Registrar at Government College University Faisalabad, appointment of---Age relaxation---Petitioner had served as a Registrar of Government College University Faisalabad ('University') but was subsequently denied appointment being over-age---Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court calling into question vires of an order / letter dated 12-11-2021 issued by the Respondents (Government of the Punjab/ Higher Education Department,) whereby he was held disentitled to get age relaxation in terms of R. 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 ('the Rules 1976')---Contention of the petitioner was that his name for the post of Registrar was recommended by the Search Committee twice but he was not appointed---Plea of the respondents was that R.3(v) of the Rules, 1976 was applicable to civil servants and did not apply to university employees---Validity---Record revealed that earlier after conducting the interview by the Search Committee, a panel of three candidates for the post of Registrar, wherein petitioner's name was at Sr.No.1, was submitted to the respondent (Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab) for approval of the Chancellor but the same was not materialized as in the meanwhile, a uniform criteria for the post of Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Treasurer was notified and circulated vide Notification dated 23.02.2021---Accordingly, the respondent-/University again advertised the posts including the post of Registrar (BPS-20)---Dispute, in the present case, was regarding applicability of R. 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 ('the Rules, 1976'), which read "In the case of a candidate already working as a Government servant, the period of his continuous service as such shall for the purpose of upper age limit prescribed under any service rules, of the post for which he is a candidate, be excluded from his age"---Rules, 1976 had been framed by the Governor of the Punjab by deriving authority from S. 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 were applicable to the recruitment of all posts---Rule 3(v) specifically provides that period of continuous service of a Government servant shall be excluded while computing upper age limit---Said Rule does not specifically provide that it would apply to civil servants rather it is providing benefit to Government servants---High Court viewed that had the Rules making authority intended to extend benefit of R.3(v) to 'civil servants' only, it could have used these words in explicit terms in the said Rule---Term 'Government servant' connotes all Government servants including civil servants and not vice versa---Relevant Notification dated 23.02.2021 specifically envisages that age for initial recruitment would be 40 to 50 years, with age relaxation as per Government Rules, leaving no room for respondent (Higher Education Commission) to create any distinction or non-applicability of the Rules of 1976---General age relaxation and exclusion of period served in Government employment for the purpose of computation of upper age limit are two separate and distinct benefits / rights awarded to Government employees including those in contract employment---These rights can be pressed into service by Government employees seeking further employment---Rules 3(v) of the Rules of 1976 is a beneficial dispensation and is to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance the remedy---Government College University, Faisalabad, was constituted by way of the Government College University Faisalabad Ordinance, 2002, which was an 'Autonomous Body' not only in terms of R. 2(c) of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, but also had been mentioned as an Autonomous Body in all concerned entries (of the Government of Punjab including the Higher Education Department and the Finance Department)---Petitioner being Government employee was entitled for benefit of R. 3(v) of the Rules, 1976 and refusal of such right was against law / Rules and as such the petitioner had been discriminated---High Court declared the impugned letter dated 12.11.2021 to be illegal and without lawful authority and directed that recommendation of the Search Committee, vide letter dated 16.07.2021, be processed and finalized as per law at the earliest---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

GHULAM GHOUS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Higher Education Department R — 2024 PLC(CS) 487 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC