' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---This constitutional petition calls in question the order dated 27-7-2005 passed by District Returning Officer, Bahwalnagar whereby appeal filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 against the acceptance of Nomination papers of petitioners for the office of Nazim and Naib Nazim from Union Council No.31, Tehsil Bahawalnagar was accepted and their Nomination papers were rejected. The main dispute before the District Returning Officer was with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the Matriculation Certificate issued in favour of Muhammad Arshad petitioner No.1 from Board of Secondary Education, Karachi in supplementary examination held in 2003.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any evidence there was no justification for the learned District Returning Officer to allow the appeal of the respondents and reject the Nomination Papers of the petitioners as proceedings of scrutiny are summary in nature and no findings about genuineness or otherwise of said Matriculation Certificate could be given without recording of evidence in regular proceedings. Learned counsel in support of his contention has also placed on record attested photo copy of the Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi, as at the time of hearing of the appeal the same was not available.
3. Oh the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents argues that without conceding the genuineness of that Certificate it is clear from the entries recorded therein that petitioner Muhammad Arshad's date of birth is 11-12-1980 and since at the time of filing of Nomination Papers he was below 25 years therefore, was not qualified to contest the elections in terms of section 152(b) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. He has further submitted that if said Certificate is admitted then its entries cannot be partly believed and partly disbelieved and that this is a sufficient evidence produced by the petitioner himself to show that the said Certificate was not validly issued and that statement of marks submitted by the petitioner before the Returning Officer or the District Returning Officer was rightly disbelieved.
4. Mr. Rehan Zafar, Advocate representing the petitioners while meeting with the above contentions of the respondents about the question of petitioner's age has, by placing reliance on the case reported in Waqas Akram v. Dr. Muhammad Tahirul Qadri and others 2003 SCM R 145, argued that the entries of Matriculation Certificate cannot be considered as conclusive evidence about the age of a candidate as usually such entries are got recorded by the parents of candidates at the time of their admission in educational institution in order to gain benefit of below age for the purposes of service matters, etc.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners would have some force, had the date of birth been got recorded by the parents of the petitioners in the examination form submitted for Matriculation examination to the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi. In the instant case the petitioner himself filed the said Admission Form and entered his date of birth as 11-12-1980 and now he is estopped from saying that said entry is against facts. For this reason the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. If the petitioner has entered his wrong date of birth in the Admission Form for the purposes of examination and in consequence thereof wrong date of birth has been entered in the Matriculation Certificate, the fault lies with him for which he must suffer. In the presence of entries in the Secondary School Examination recorded on the basis oi information made available by the petitioner himself, he cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by saying that although said Certificate for the purposes of passing Matriculation Certificate be accepted as genuine yet its entry regarding his date of birth be ignored and his date of birth as recorded in the Register of Birth of Union Council No.49, Tehsil Pakpattan showing his date of birth as 27-11-1976, be accepted whereas the contesting respondents have also vehemently disputed the entries of abovementioned birth register being of a different village. Similarly the entries of Identification Card of the petitioner regarding his date of birth are also not in consonance with the date of birth entered in the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Karachi.
7. The abovementioned facts when taken together, lead to an irresistible conclusion that either the Matriculation Certificate obtained and placed on record by the petitioner No.1 from Board of Secondary Education, Karachi showing himself as a successful candidate of Secondary School Examination, 2003 does not relate to Muhammad Arshad petitioner or in terms of entry of date of birth of petitioner on the basis of information provided by the petitioner himself, he was definitely below the age of 25 years at the time of filing of Nomination Papers.
8. The petitioners have approached this Court in constitutional jurisdiction which is discretionary in nature and cannot be exercised in aid of retention of illegal gain as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in "Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others"
PLD 2001 SC 415. Prima facie the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and this alone is sufficient to disentitle them for the grant of extraordinary discretionary relief in constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on "Nawab Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others" PLD 1973 SC 236 and "Nisar-ulHaq v. Tehsil Municipal Administrator City through Nazim and 2 others" PLD 2002' Lahore.
359.
9. I am, therefore, satisfied that though on different reasoning yet the learned District Returning Officer committed no illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned order and said order of the District Returning Officer is based on correct and valid exercise of jurisdiction which cannot be interfered in constitutional jurisdiction. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.