In response to an advertisement published by Respondent No, 1 inviting application for the posts of A-Class Naib Tehsildar (BS-14) in Board of Revenue, the petitioner also filed his application. The application was entertained and he was admitted to written examination, which he undertook. He was declared successful in the written examination and cleared for interview. The petitioner belongs to village Lawa, Tehsil Talagang. This Tehsil formerly used to be part of District Attock Later under some administrative arrangement, this Tehsil was attached with District Chakwal. In his Application Form (shown to me by the said officer from his record) against the relevant Column No, 9 pertaining to District of Domicile he stated "Attock (now Chakwal)". Somehow or the other, it was assumed by the respondent-Commission that the petitioner is domiciled in Attock. Consequently, he was called upon to file his domicile certificate from District Attock, which obviously he failed to do and on the said ground his application was rejected and so was the case with his representation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since father of the petitioner had been issued a domicile certificate while Tehsil Talagang was still a part of District Attock, he accordingly mentioned his domicile as depicted above, in his Application Form. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner has now been issued a domicile certificate from District Chakwal, of course, pertaining to Tehsil Talagang. The precise contention is that the petitioner stands condemned for no fault of his. The learned Addl. A.G., on the other hand, contends that the petitioner ought to have produced the domicile certificate from Chakwal but this was not done till such time that the recommendations had been made by the respondent-Commission and now it is rather late in the day.
3. I have given some thought to the contentions of the learned counsel and the learned Law Officer.
To my mind, it is a case of erroneous assumption with no fault attributable to the petitioner, who has duly disclosed the factum in his Application Form. The respondent-Commission opted to treat him as domiciled in Attock notwithstanding the said apparent facts i,e, the later inclusion of Tehsil Talagang in District Chakwal and kept calling upon the petitioner to produce a domicile certificate from Attock District, which he could not. There is no denial that a domicile certificate from Chakwal has since been issued. He has, admittedly, passed the written examination. So far as the said contention of the learned Addl. A.G. is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2000, notified on 8.4.2000.
Regulation No, 71 clearly provides that if an error or omission is detected in the eligibility of candidate, result or merit list at any stage after its dispatch to the Department concerned, the recommendations made on the basis of such a mistake/error will be corrected and the merit list withdrawn by the Commission for review. It is but obvious that the Respondent No, 1 is lawfully competent to undo the wrong committed. The writ petition accordingly is allowed. The rejection of the Application Form of the petitioner by the Respondent No, 1 as also the representation is declared to be without lawful authority and void. The Respondent No, 1-Commission shall now act in accordance with the said Regulation No, 71 and correct the error after interviewing the petitioner, if need be, to withdraw the merit list for review. No orders as to costs.