ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARCHI

CP No.D-783 of 2009

----------------------------------------------------

Order with signature of Judge

----------------------------------------------------

1. For orders on Misc.5177/2009.

2. For orders on office objection No.2 a/w reply.

3. For orders on Misc.5178/2009.

4. For Katcha Peshi.

-------------------------------------------------

20.05.2009.

-----------

Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate for the petitioner.

*********

This is a petition for relaxation of age limit. The contention of petitioner is that she applied in response to an advertisement in the newspaper by Federal Public Service Commission to appear in the competitive examination (CSS) and after she being examined and crossed all the barriers for appearance and examination, then thereafter her result has been withheld by a Memorandum dated 06.09.2008, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner is overage by 4 months and 26 days. Learned counsel submits that had this been the situation, then the petitioner would have been intimated earlier and would not have been passed through all the ordeals of examination and preparation. He submits that since she has been permitted to appear in examination, therefore, her result may be announced and some relaxation towards age for 4 months and 26 days may be given.

After hearing the learned counsel, it appears that the advertisement, which appeared in the newspaper and is annexed as annexure B with the petition, gives the eligibility which requires a person to be in between 21-28 years of age on 1^st January 2008. Admittedly, as coming from the other papers, date of birth of the petitioner is 05.08.1979, therefore, she was non-suited to the advertisement but with the condition of relaxation of age. We have observed that petitioner has approached the Federal Public Service Commission by its letter annexed with the petition in respect to the relaxation of her age but no proper response has been given so far. The last letter of Federal Service Commission dated 15.11.2008 is a letter forwarding the request of petitioner in respect to the relaxation of age but thereafter no further response has been given. In such a situation, we find that the matter of relaxation of age is still pending while, according to the advertisement itself, a finding in respect to the relaxation of age is to be given as per rules.

In such a situation, although we dismiss this petition as premature, as no final answer has been given by the Federal Public Service Commission, but simultaneously direct the Federal Public Service Commission to respond to the request of petitioner in respect to the relaxation of age within a period of 15 days and that must be based on the relevant rules and with speaking order.

JUDGE