SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J:---The petitioner, a law graduate was a candidate to compete for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (BS-9) pursuant to an advertisement for 279 posts in the Punjab Home Department, (Gujranwala Range). He was found eligible and qualified the written test. He was called for interview, which was held on 29-5-2003. On completion of the process the Punjab Public Service Commission (to be referred as the Commission) recommended 279 candidates but the petitioner was not recommended as according to the Commission he "could not come in the orbit of selection due to lower merit". He is stated to have made a representation before the.
Commission for awarding of additional marks for his qualification of LL.B. Since no favourable decision was made by the Commission he has eventually approached this Court through a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with his grievance and prayer that "the act of respondent No,1 for not awarding three marks to the petitioner for his LL.B., higher qualification may very kindly be declared illegal, unlawful, void, ab initio, nullity in the eye of law, inoperative qua the rights of the petitioner, without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the rights of the petitioner and the respondent No,1 Punjab Public Service Commission may be directed to award three (3) marks to the petitioner for his LL.B higher qualification and to determine the merit of the petitioner after adding three marks for the purpose of merit and the respondent No,1 be further directed to recommend the petitioner for the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector (BS-9) according to merit and the respondent No,2 and 3 be directed to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector (BS-9) in the interest of justice." In support of the petition that the petitioner was entitled to three marks for his qualification of LL.B the learned counsel contends that as per the policy decision of the Commission the petitioner was entitled to the same and he has wrongly been denied the additional marks. According to him with the addition of three marks he comes within the orbit of selection and attains higher merit position.
2. The respondents were directed to submit report and parawise comments. Respondent No,2 i,e, the Government of the Punjab, through Home Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore has responded that "the points agitated by the petitioner in the instant writ petition primarily relate to respondent No,1 Punjab Public Service Commission and do not require any comment, from respondent No,2".
Respondent No,3 i,e, Provincial Police Officer Punjab, Lahore has taken the position that "award of additional marks for higher qualification is not in the purview of the answering respondent and is the sole prerogative of Punjab Public Service Commission." The petition has, however, been contested by respondent No,1 by filing report and parawise comments. The learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab has been heard in the matter.
3. The undisputed position, which is also stated in the report submitted by respondent NO.1, is that the petitioner was one of the candidates and Applicant for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector who was found eligible and qualified the written test. He was interviewed on 29-5-2003 "but no additional marks of LL.B were awarded to him because the petitioner himself admitted in the application form that his LL.B., result was awaited and was not declared till 15-7-2002 i,e, the closing date." There is admission in para.No,2 of the comments that "at the time of interview he produced the detail marks of his LL.B., Examination but no marks on account of additional qualification of LL.B, certificate were given to him because he himself admitted in the application form that result of his LL.B exam was awaited on the last date for submission of application form. The Detail marks Certificate/transcript of LL.B Examination also contains a date i,e, 18-11-2002 at the bottom thereof."
There is thus no dispute that the petitioner holds additional qualification of LL.B but the moot point is whether the approach adopted by the Commission in disallowing the additional marks was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute that while submitting his application form the petitioner had stated that the result of LL.B was awaited but his case on the basis of result-sheet dated 10-7-2002, (copy whereof has been placed on the record) is that though the result had been announced on 10th of July, 2002 he was not aware of the same. In support thereof letter dated 30-5-2003 by the International Islamic University, Islamabad addressed to the Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission is being invoked that the result had been declared on 10-7-2002 before the closing date of 15-7-2002. It is thus pleaded that on the closing date he had acquired the additional qualification of LL.B and was entitled to the additional marks. Prima facie the assertion of the petitioner finds support from letter dated 30-5-2003 issued by the International Islamic University, Islamabad and if there was any doubt thereabout the Commission could have verified the factual position from the University. This, however,appear to have not been done. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner upon Dr. Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Government of Punjab etc. (1997 CLC 354) in the circumstances lends support to his claim wherein it was observed that "The mere fact that an activity was not previously claimed or a certificate in support of it was not produced cannot affect the genuineness of the claim made at a subsequent stage. The genuineness of a claim or document is a question of fact to be determined on its own factual merit and not by an inference based on a presumption." Suffice it to observe that mere a representation in the application form which according to him was based on lack of information and contrary to the reality could not be given that much weight. If indeed the result had been declared before the closing date and he had acquired the additional qualification. He could not be denied the benefit of additional marks for the reasons which prevailed with the Commission. There is no denial of the fact that the policy decision of awarding additional marks for higher qualification was currently operative. Such a beneficial policy had to be construed in a manner, which advances underlying object and purpose of the same. It could not be applied in a manner to deprive a person what was his due and entitled to. Needless to reiterate that too much adherence to technicalities which impedes the cause of justice cannot be countenanced by the Court. Assertion as to whether the petitioner had indeed attained the additional qualification of LL:I3 before the closing date i,e, 15-7-2002 can still be verified by the Commission by making reference to the International Islamic University. Islamabad and in case the finding is in affirmative to formulate its recommendations accordingly.
The petition is accepted with the direction that the assertion and claim of the petitioner will be dependent upon the verification of the E facts from the International Islamic University, Islamabad and the finding of the Commission.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the recommended/appointed personnel (who are not party to this petition would be adversely affected will also be considered by the Commission while formulating its recommendations in the light of the factual finding as to the date of the acquisition of additional qualification by the petitioner. This exercise will be undertaken and completed by the Commission within a period of 30 days. Accepting the petition in the above terms the same is disposed of accordingly. No order to costs.