- (1.)The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Assistant District Industries Officer/Development Officer on September 22, 1975 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in August, 1976. The conditions of service and recruitment to the various posts in the Industries Department are governed by the Punjab Industries Service (State Service Class II) rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 9(b) which prescribes the mode of recruitment to the posts of Assistant Director reads as under :-
"9-Method of Recruitment. - Recruitment to the Service shall be made in the following manner :-

(a) x x x x

(b) In the case of Assistant Director, Assistant Controller of Stores, District Industries Officer Stores Inspection Officer, Purchase Officer (Emporia Organisation), Textile Officer (Marketing) and Textile Officer (Development);

(i) by direct appointment on the basis of selection made through a competitive examination to be held by the Commission. An official serving in the Industries Department shall also be eligible to sit in such examination, subject to his availing the three chances in addition to these which might have been availed of by him as a direct candidate before his joining the service provided that :-

(1) he fulfills the minimum qualifications specified for the posts in Appendix 'B' to these rules.

(2) he has not attained the age of 35 years.

(3) he has not less than four years service in the Department on the first day of January next preceding the last date fixed by the Commission for the submission of applications :

(ii) by promotion from amongst the Assistant District Industries Officers/Development Officers Planning-cum-Survey Officers, Assistant Marketing Officer (Emporia Organisation) having atleast five years' experience as such :

Provided that fifty per cent posts shall be filled in by method specified in clause (i) and fifty per cent posts shall be filled in by the method specified in clause (ii)."

(2.)The Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter called 'the Commission') gave an advertisement in the Tribune in May, 1978, calling upon applications for recruitment to eleven posts of Assistant Directors through a competitive examination. The petitioners submitted their applications within the prescribed time. A competitive examination was scheduled to be held on December 24, 1978. The petitioners were, however, informed vide Annexure P-4 dated December 1, 1978 that they were not qualified to sit in the examination as neither they had worked for four years in the Department nor had necessary five years sound administrative experience. The petitioners then moved the State Government under Rule 19 for relaxation of the provisions of Rule 9 which require four years service. The other ground given by the Commission that the petitioners were required to have five years' sound administrative experience did not relate to them because they were seeking direct recruitment and the condition of experience applied only when the appointments were to be made by promotion. As the petitioners fulfilled all the qualifications required for direct recruitment except the age limit, the Government in exercise of its powers contained in Rule 19 relaxed the condition of experience and the length of service in the case of Departmental candidates who had applied for direct recruitment and further directed the Commission to consider their case for the competitive examination along with the other candidates. A copy of this order dated December 20, 1978 has been produced with the petition as Annexure P-5. Inspite of this order the petitioners were never issued roll numbers nor they were allowed to take the examination which compelled them to come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Commission Annexure P-4 and the selection of respondents 3 to 13. A further prayer has been made for the issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the Commission to reconsider the claims of the petitioners along with the other applicants.
(3.)The petition has been opposed by the State. The Commission and the private respondents. In the written statement filed by the State all the facts alleged by the petitioners have been admitted and the only plea raised to oppose the petition is that the petitioners could not claim relaxation as a matter of right. As the Government had already chosen to invoke the provisions of relaxation this plea by the State has no meaning. In the written statement filed by the Commission the claim of the petitioners is controverted on two grounds, namely, that in the order, Annexure P-5, the Government relaxed the condition of age, but as it was not specified to what extent the age was relaxed, it was not possible to give effect to the order of the Government and that if the conditions prescribed in the rules qua the Departmental candidates were deemed to have been relaxed it was necessary to re-advertise the posts to give opportunity to all eligible Departmental Candidates, but as there was no time to do so, it was not possible at that stage to allow the petitioners to sit in the examination.