- This notification has two parts. In clause (I) it is laid down that due consideration will be given by the Public Service Commission to the experience and departmental training of the candidate while clause (ii) deals with the relaxation of age limit. This notification does not notify the promulgation of some new rules; it only notifies the decision of the Government — “Experience” and “departmental training” are mentioned in the notification. The use of word “departmental” clearly shows training imparted to person while he is a member of a department. The reference is to no other person than one who has been given such training before he appears before the Public Service Commission for initial recruitment. This appears to be a reference to ad hoc appointees. The words “experience” however, may also apply to persons who are not ad hoc appointees. But the question is what experience is required to be considered by the Commission? The impugned notification is silent on the point. If it has to convey any logical meaning it should mean experience suitable for the post for which a candidate is appearing. The words “experience” without doubt include experience gained as an ad hoc appointee. Therefore, the irresistable conclusion is that the benefit sought to be given by the first part of the Notification is mainly for the same class about whom it was authoritatively decided in the judgment in Yunus Tahir’s case that they did not form part of a reasonable classification. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Govt. v. Javed Iqbal Khawaja & another 1996 SCR 40 (B) 1994 SCR 341 relied.
- The view of the High Court regarding clause (ii) of Notification No.1 upheld. However, the relief was likewise amended with the direction that if the Govt. wishes to relax the upper age limit it should exercise its power in such a way that other persons who have suffered due to the situation under review should also be benefited. AJK Govt. v. Javed Iqbal Khawaja & another 1996 SCR 40 (J)
error: Content is protected !!