MUHAMMAD MOHSIN GHUMAN versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, LAHORE
R 3 (v) Police Order (22 of 2002), Police Service Recruitment of Government Employees (relaxation of upper age limit) Rule 3 (v) of Rule 1976, on the same article posted on the Police Service Special. One of the common law controllable articles was posted by Assistant Sub Inspectors (ASI) scope posts and one of the conditions was related to the age range of the candidates, namely, appellants between 18 and 25 years. Were performing. Police officers claimed that they fulfilled all the requirements for advertising posts, except the upper age limit of 25 years. That in accordance with Rule 3 (v) of the Punjab Government Employees Recruitment (upper age limit) Rule 1976, their continuous public service period should not be excluded from the upper age limit for the advertised positions. ? Regulation 3 (v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (upper age limit) began with a non-provisional clause, but in addition, any rule applicable to any post or service is contrary to some Not even. Police officers were denied the constitutional application filed by the appellant on the basis that in the presence of special law, the Police Order 2002 and the rules made thereunder, the common law, namely, the recruitment of Punjab Government employees (in the upper age limit). Gentleness) Do not apply under Rule 1976, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the recruitment of the aforesaid rules on the various posts in the Police Service, in different ranks under Article 7 of the Special Order, Police Order 2002, under Police Order 2002. A recruitment appointment will be made. Including Assistant Sub Inspector Nun Obonist Clause, Punjab Civil Servant
