View Single Post
  #213  
Old Saturday, June 01, 2013
xplodec xplodec is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: karachi
Posts: 25
Thanks: 13
Thanked 58 Times in 24 Posts
xplodec is on a distinguished road
Default

The air is full of many voices, each suggesting or demanding a move towards a particular direction, rejecting all options and calling all alternatives empty and fruitless. My dear Mystic, although I didn’t want to comment further on the issue, which you have been championing for almost a year i.e. age relaxation up to 35 years, ground realities and your words compelled me to express what I feels.

I want to make clear one thing at the very moment: I have no intentions to create division or cleavage among the strivers; I just want to ask them for thinking on the basis of reasoning, not emotions.

Every reality has its bases and grounds and can only be grasped through them. As far as I know, a little attempt has been done to look beyond and behind what we see, and to explore the factors which govern the decision making process in the federal bureaucracy and the Senate.

Everyone knows that prior to 28 years maximum age restriction, until 2001, the age limit had been confined and unchallenged to 30 years of maximum age for almost 54 years. Interestingly, in the meanwhile no one, as afar as I know, argued in the favor of increasing that age limit up to 35 years. So, now which factor is compelling the aspirants of age relaxation for advancing 35 years relaxation arguments, instead of 30 years? The reply is simple:

‘The former PM Gilani has advanced that relaxation to all federal BPS 17-21 ex-cadre posts in 2011,except for the competitive examination.’

This argument is also the cornerstone of the LHC petition. It is valid, justifiable and pursuable; consequently, the LHC registrar granted the request the status of petition. The argument is logical; notwithstanding, asking for the competitive examination to be treated at par seems illogical and nurturing false hopes.

Why I am saying so! Do I have any illusion! Or am I pessimist enough? Lets see what is advanced.

Participation requirement in the competitive examination is graduation. On average, a child starts schooling at the age of 5 years, at 16 completes matriculation and normally at 19 acquires an intermediate status. Now if a 2 years graduation degree is pursued, it can be acquired at the age of 22; if four years graduation degree is pursued; it can be acquired at the age of 24. However, make these statistics more lenient and add one extra year at the beginning; still, the count reaches at the age of 26. Now look the matter from another angle for those who acquire masters degree and still, the count remains in the boundary of 27 years of age.

From this point of view, 30 years maximum age restriction would be quite reasonable as it was before.

Furthermore, when the 28 years maximum age restriction was enacted no university was awarding 4 years graduation degree and majority of graduates had 2 years graduation degrees. Now much has changed as almost every university is awarding 4 years degree which requires 2 extra years to acquire, and still it could be completed within 20-25 years of age bracket.

However, in order to encourage the masters and 4 years graduation degree holders, the FPSC must enhance the age limit up to 30 years and for a 2 years simple graduation degree it must be restricted at 28 years of maximum age.

As per the 35 years age relaxation argument, if a person is inducted in the bureaucracy at the age of 34 or 35 how many years he or she will serve considering the present retiring age and expenses of government to train these bureaucrats is again in question! Moreover, 30-35 years of age bracket is a domain for male candidates to strive for making themselves set in their particular fields, instead of looking for new ventures. Notwithstanding, for female candidates the maximum age limit could be extended up to 35 years (it is merely my opinion), but not for male candidates.

It is also interesting to note that in all S. Asian countries, maximum age limit for such examinations is 30 years, neither 35 nor 28. In our country we are facing a massive youth bulge in the age cohort of 20-30. The same argument was the reason for rejection of the age extension summaries up to 30 years, moved by the FPSC to the former PM twice. However, the decision makers missed a very important point which is deeply ingrained in ‘youth bulge or young blood’ argument: there is a youth bulge of specified age cohort, but how many graduates in it and their age structure should be considered before making such important policy decisions. Commonsense or careful assessment, whatever is used, by seeing at the above provided statistics will certainly put more weight on age limit extension up to 30 years.

Decision makers and even ordinary people like me must asses ‘graduates age structure’ argument and then decide in the favor of 28, 30 or 35 years of age relaxation.

Now lets come to the LHC petition side. Several aspirants have contributed financially and morally in it. This petition, as I said earlier, is based on legitimate argument i.e. victimization of CSS over-aged aspirants and violation of their fundamental rights, which have been granted under article 25 of the constitution. This is a rare and golden opportunity for us. It must not be wasted. By asking 35 years of relaxation is like treating the competitive examination at par with other federal 17 grade posts, and in my humble opinion, the court, FPSC and even the PM would not allow such massive extension.

Every case in courts is fought on the basis of rational arguments, evidence and precedents. In this case, if an ordinary person like me can bring such ordinary arguments, what the legal team of the FPSC will do to defend the case is again a dark area. Those people who have contributed their hard earned earnings to pay the fees of lawyer, must ask questions from those who have been championing and motivating others to support the cause financially for almost nothing as the case is overwhelmed to move even an inch due to two basic problems.

Firstly, until now it is hanging like a pendulum: except issuing notice and acquiring provisional permission for over-aged candidates nothing concrete has been done so far. The petition was lodged and the matter became sub judiced. Even an ordinary student of law knows that it is like a stay order. On 24th of May, over several contacts and persuasions, Mr. A.A Dogar reminded the judge, Justice Ijaz-ul-Hassan, regarding the matter. Once again a final notice was issued to the FPSC regarding the provisional status of the over-aged candidates who have taken CE-2013. Its hearing, as far as I know, is scheduled on 24 or 25th of June. My point behind this prologue is that if the petitioners or the aspirants who have contributed finically or other age relaxation aspirants do not persuade or in other words pressurize the lawyer for early hearings and early resolution, the case tenure will be as long as the Satan’s intestine.

Secondly, it must be centered towards realistic and achievable objectives. I will say once again that striving for 35 years of maximum age relaxation for participation in the competitive examination is like nurturing false hopes. Furthermore, no candidate who has contributed financially or those who are willing to do the same, make further financial pledges to this lawyer or to those who are arguing in his favor.

Those people who say that advancing arguments based on reasoning is like deceiving others and are actually motivated by self-interest are, in real sense, living in utopia. In its response I may ask, with due respect, what would they do if the FPSC or the court rejects such massive extension by saying that federal and competitive examination could not be treated at par or something wrong was done in the past and it sustenance in present cannot make it right? Haven’t they staked the future of those aspirants who are asking only 30 years of legitimate age relaxation? Haven’t they staked hard earned financing of sincere aspirants for an illusion? Aren’t they self-centered and deceiving others by raising false hopes in others merely for their own advantage (God knows the nature of advantage)? Whether we would have been granted 35 years of age relaxation or 30 years, in both cases I will be at a win-win situation. So there is no question of self-interest, at least in my case.

Only time will tell us who was right; unfortunately, we do not enjoy the liberty of time. The threats lour more darkly. The twilight is deeper. The aftermath has come and relentlessly demands the price of what has gone before. We are merely wasting a rare and golden opportunity. Finally I would say that many things expressed in the above lines may displease some aspirants; some things may displease many aspirants. These are not fears, but expectations. Anyway, come what may!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to xplodec For This Useful Post:
ayeshha (Saturday, June 01, 2013), dms664 (Saturday, June 01, 2013), Ednan (Saturday, June 01, 2013), kingfalcon (Saturday, June 01, 2013)