1. Sayed Zahid Hussain, J.--Muhammad Naseer Khan appellant and Respondents No 2 and 3 along- with others are said to have filed nomination papers for a seat in the National Assembly, NA-115, Narowal. On the objections filed against the appellant that he did not possess bachelor's degree and was not qualified to be a candidate for election, his nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer on 3.12.2007. This is appeal under Section 14(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, to assail the said order.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard whereas the learned Standing Counsel for Pakistan has produced before us a letter from Higher Education Commission dated 6.12.2007.
3. During the course of hearing of the appeal the learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 has candidly stated that the said respondent was not contesting the appeal and rather he had the instructions that the objections so filed before the Returning Officer, may not be pressed. However, the learned counsel for Respondent No, 2 has contested this appeal.
4. The case of appellant as advanced by his learned counsel is that he had contested the election held in the year 2002 when a similar objection was raised before the Returning Officer which had been turned down in view of the certification by the then University Grants Commission. Letter dated 7.9.2002 is being invoked whereby the Commission had informed that University or Nairobi is an accredited University of Kenya. The University of Grants Commission recognized the Bachelor of Arts degree awarded to Mr. Muhammad Nasir Khan as equivalent to Bachelor's degree from Pakistan. It is further clarified that as customary the Foreign Universities did not mention the Role No,, Registration No, or father's name of candidate on the degrees." According to the learned counsel in view of such a report having been received from the Commission, the appeal was even withdrawn by the then contestant against the appellant (i,e, E.A. No, 78/2002). It is contended that the same position prevails even now, as the Higher Education Commission has affirmed the degree so possessed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents, however, has endeavoured to dispute the very genuineness of the degree on the basis of which the appellant is claiming to be qualified for contesting the election. Another aspect which is being brought to our notice is that before the Returning Officer, some documents were produced/shown by one of the candidates, which persuaded him to take the view that the degree produced by the appellant was fake and forged. None is, however, on the record before us.
5. On consideration of the matter we find that the appellant had indeed contested the election held in the year 2002 as is apparent from the record and even admitted by the respondent side. The issue as to the genuineness of the degree had even then cropped up and the University Grants Commission certified vide letter dated 7.9.2002 about the degree issued by the University of Nairobi, Kenya. When such an objection was raised before the Returning Officer, the appellant was directed on 29.11.2007 by the Returning Officer to produce the verification certificate from the University Grants Commission/Higher Education Commission with original certificate, on 1.12.2007. It was thus, that letter dated 30.11.2007 from the Higher Education Commission was addressed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Returning Officer for NA-115, Narowal to confirm the contents of previous letter dated 7.9.2002. It was noted in the order by the Returning Officer that "During oral hearing the original degree together with certificate of the HEC of Pakistan was produced by the candidate. The candidate also produced mark-sheets and certificate issued by the University of Nairobi on 29 August, 2002", despite that, he recorded the finding that the degree produced by the candidate was fake and forged. We are unable to countenance such an approach adopted by the Returning Officer in presence of the repeated certification by the Commission as to the degree and its genuineness. For our satisfaction, we had also sent for the record from the Higher Education Commission. The same is available and earlier stance of the commission taken in the year 2002 is being reiterated and reaffirmed. The assertion of the learned counsel for Respondent No, 2 that some other material was also produced or presented before the Returning Officer, remain unsubstantiated as neither any such material has been shown or produced before us. To keep the appellant out of contest from the election in the circumstances when on the basis of same qualifications and similar circumstances he had been elected in the year 2002, on such mere unsubstantiated allegations, is not justifiable. In view of stance of the Commission, his nomination papers have wrongly and illegally been rejected. The order passed by the Returning Officer is, thus unsustainable and is set aside.
6. The appeal is accepted, as a consequence whereof the nomination papers filed by the appellant will be treated to have been accepted. No order as to costs.