MUHAMMAD MOHSIN GHUMAN versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, LAHORE
R 3 (v) Police Order (22 of 2002), Article 7 (3) Police Service Recruitment of Government Employees (Relaxation in the upper age limit) R 3 (v) of the 1976 Rules (1976). The law probably dominated the common law on the same topic - an article was published by Assistant Sub Inspectors (ASI) scope posts and a condition related to the age range of the candidates, namely Appellants between 18 and 25 years. , Who was serving the police. The officers, however, claimed that they met all the requirements for advertising positions, except that the upper age limit was 25 years. According to R3 (v) of the Punjab Government Employees Recruitment (Relaxation in the upper age limit) Rules 1976, their continuous public employment period was to be excluded from the upper age limit fixed for advertising posts. R 3 (v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Upper Age Limit) Rules 1976 began with the provisional clause, but on the contrary, any rule applicable to any post or service is included. Police officers were denied a constitutional petition filed by the appellant on the ground that in the presence of special law, the Police Order 2002 and the rules framed thereunder, the common law, namely, the recruitment of government employees (in the upper age limit). Gentleness) Rules 1976 will not apply, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the recruitment of the above mentioned rules on the various posts in the Police Service, relating to recruitment under Article 7 of the Police Order, Special Order, Police Order, 2002. Various levels, including Assistant Sub Inspector Nun-Obonist Clause, which include R3 (v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation in the upper age limit) Rules, 1976
