1. ' GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J.---Through this petition filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim constitution Act, 1974, all order passed by the AJ&K P.S.C. On 19-8-2008, whereby review petition filed by petitioner-herein is rejected, has been challenged for having been passed without lawful authority. The precise facts of the case are that the petitioner herein, in pursuance of advertisement No,1 of 2008, applied to the AJ&K Public Service Commission for appointment as Lecturer Physics against the quota of District Bagh. He claims that a complete application, according to the conditions of the above mentioned advertisement, was filed with the P.S.C. But vide letter dated 2-8-2008, he was informed that his A application is rejected. The petitioner, herein, filed a review petition before the Chairman P.S.C. Stating therein that he submitted a complete application along with domicile certificate hence rejection of his application is illegal. It was submitted that an attested copy of the domicile certificate is attached with the review petition, accepting the same, petitioner may be allowed to appear in the test and interview.
2. The review petition filed by petitioner, herein, was rejected on 19-8-2008. The precise case of the petitioner is that he cannot be disqualified without holding an inquiry about his categoric stand and providing an opportunity of hearing. It is further stated by the petitioner that he obtained a domicile certificate in 1997 and the same was in his possession. There was no difficulty in submitting the same with the application. It is alleged that the decision of the P.S.C. Is arbitrary and violative of the principle of the natural justice. The respondents have filed written statements. It is alleged that the petitioner has deliberately not attached his domicile certificate with his application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has dragged the respondents in litigation with mala fide intention and for ulterior motive.
3. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Janjua, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, inter alia argued that a categoric stand has been taken by the petitioner that he has submitted a complete application along with the domicile certificate in the office of the P.S.C. And the same was received by the officials without any objection. He argued that application of the petitioner, herein, was rejected vide order dated 12-8-2008 without affording him an opportunity of hearing. His appeal also met the same fate without holding an inquiry and hearing. He argued that the copy of the domicile certificate was produced in time, even before issuance of call letters to the candidates and there was no harm in accepting the same. It was next argued by him that the petitioner has qualified the test and interview against the quota of District Bagh and has also been recommended by the P.S.C., as per direction of this Court, and is not being appointed which is an illegal act of the respondents. The learned Advocate argued that the averments made in the petition have not been denied by the P.S.C. Specifically rather their denial is of evasive nature which can be treated as an admission.
4. ' On the other hand, Raja Mumtaz Hussain Kiani, the learned Additional Advocate General, controverting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner was incomplete, therefore, P.S.C. Was within its authority in rejecting the same. He argued that the requirement of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Procedure Rules is to submit a complete application and the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of the Public Service Commission Procedure Rules for which he has to face the penal consequences. He argued that the instant petition has been filed by him with unclean hands for the protection of the lapses committed by him. He maintained that the discretionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a person who is not vigilant.
5. ' I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the record of the case. It may be stated that the functions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission are regulated by the Procedure Rules known as the "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994". Rule 4 of the said Rules postulates that an eligible candidate may submit his application to the Commission on the prescribed form before the last date fixed by the Commission. An application received after the last date is liable to be rejected by the Commission. Sub-rule (2) of rule 4 empowered the Commission to reject the incomplete applications. Sub-rule (4) of rule 4 given right to a candidate whose application is rejected to apply to the Commission for review against the rejection order. In the instant case the application of the petitioner, herein, has been rejected on the ground that domicile certificate has not been filed by him. The categoric stand of the petitioner is that he has filed a complete application and the copy of the domicile certificate was also annexed therewith. The same stand was taken by him in his review petition. The Public Service Commission without holding an inquiry and affording him an opportunity of hearing rejected his application and review petition. It is not denied by the P.S.C.
6. That the copy of the domicile certificate was not appended with the review petition. The right of review has been provided by the legislature for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved candidates in genuine cases. The rules mentioned above, therefore, are to be interpreted in beneficial manner in order to advance the cause of justice. Any other interpretation which prevent the candidates from a fair competition will frustrate the very object of the rules and wisdom of the rules making authority. A strict view cannot be taken in all cases until public policy so demands. I have noticed that neither a regular inquiry has been conducted in light of the allegation levelled by the petitioner nor he has been heard before disposing of his review petition. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, makes it obligatory that a quasi-judicial or an administrative authority which decides a case brought before him has to give reasons for its cancellation. Where no reasons are given then the powers exercised by such authority cannot be saved on the ground that the action was taken strictly under the provision of the relevant rules. It is useful to reproduce section 24-A of the General Clauses Act which is as under:-- "24-A Exercise of power under enactments.---(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justily and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or, as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially".
7. ' In Zain Yar Khan's case 1998 SCMR 2419=1998 PLC (C.S.)1484, Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act received the attention of the apex Court of Pakistan. It is observed as under:-- "There can be no grain-saying the fact that quasi-judicial order should, in principle, carry due reasons. Indeed, as has lately been recognized, in virtue of the newly added section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, 1897 even an administrative authority, office or person, making an order or issuing a direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment, is now obligated, so far as necessary or appropriate, to give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction. In eventualities where due reasons are missing from such an order, an affectee stands armed with a right to require the authority, office or person concerned, to furnish due reasons and an obligation attaches in response to furnish such to the aggrieved party. In departmental appeals, equally covered by section 24-A ibid. But belonging to a higher genus, as the same attract quasi judicial functions, necessary treatment of reasons thereon, cannot but be a sine qua non for orders issuing therefrom. Even so, the fora, in which such orders are questioned, in the instant case the Service Tribunal and ultimately this Court, have a discretion either to simply set aside the departmental appellate orders for want of necessary reasons or where the justice of a case so demands, to discover the reasons, if discernable from the record, to uphold the finding, if the finding appears to be otherwise just, convenient and purposeful".
8. ' In a case titled Syed Mukadar Hussain Shah v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Mirpur through its Chairman 1995 CLC 1594, the disqualification of the petitioner therein was questioned on the ground that minimum requirement of rules of natural justice was not fulfilled. I would have remanded he case to the Commission for recording its reasons but the result of the P.S.C. Has been announced and the petitioner has qualified the test and interview, therefore, the remand would not be in the interest of justice and may cause hardship to the petitioner. It may be that law is now well settled that where a candidate has not filed a copy of document in time he can be allowed to furnish the same for genuine reasons before the completion of the selection process.
9. ' In Habib-ur-Rehman's case 1979 SCMR 121, the same view was approved by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In that case a domicile certificate was produced by a candidate for admission in an educational institution after the prescribed date fixed for the purpose. The refusal of the authority was set aside by the apex Court and it was observed as under:-- "But merely because this certificate was produced after the prescribed date for interviewing candidates from this agency would not mean that the fourth respondent was debarred from applying for admission if he was other wise so entitled to do, provided the certificate was produced before the authorities announced the list of candidates granted admission. And, as the fourth respondent admittedly obtained the correct certificate a month before the Government announced the list of successful candidates, nothing turns on the fact that he produced a correct certificate at least in the absence of some mandatory provisions to the contrary, and no such provision has been produced before us.
10. ' In these circumstances, as the fourth respondent had admittedly obtained far higher marks than the petitioner, the only question was whether the certificate of domicile granted to the fourth respondent by the political Agent, Orakzai Agency was in order, therefore, we agree with the view of the learned Judges of the High Court that the fourth respondent's application had been illegally rejected and as he had higher marks than the petitioner, he was clearly entitled to admission as against the petitioner. The petition is without merit and is dismissed".
11. ' A case titled Dr. Zia Suleman Farooqi v. Punjab Public Service Commission PLD 1994 Lahore 55 can also be quoted, wherein it was observed that the procedural technicalities were not to be allowed to defeat the very purpose for which those provisions existed. The facts of the case were that the candidate who appeared before the P.S.C. For appointment was not in possession of the certificate necessarily to be produced as per conditions of, the advertisement. His application was rejected by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Mr. Justice Khalilur-Rehman Ramday, (as his lordship then was) allowed the petitioner to, place the document on the record. The reasons for allowing the document at a belated stage have been recorded in para 25 of the report as under:--
25. "From the able assistance provided to me by the learned counsel for the parties and from the guidance available to me through the above noticed precedents from the Superior Courts of our country, the principles that I have been able to gather and the conclusions that I have been able to reach are:--
(a) ...........
(b) that the procedural technicalities are not to be allowed to defeat the very purpose for which these provisions exit i.e, the justice and that such technicalities can never be allowed to deny to a person what is his".
12. The stand of the learned Additional Advocate General that P.S.C. Was within the authority in rejecting the application under the relevant rules is correct but the exercise of powers and interpretation of rules by the P.S.C., in view of the above referred case-law, cannot be approved by this Court.
13. ' In the light of what has been stated above, the petition is accepted. The action taken by the P.S.0 is declared to have been taken without lawful authority. As the petitioner has qualified the test, and interview, therefore, he shall be appointed forthwith.