SHAHID MUBEEN, J.--- Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has sought direction to respondents to consider his case like that of Syed Muhammad Tahir Imitaz Shah.
2. Precisely , the facts of the case as discernible from this writ petition are that the petitioner applied for appointment as Constable in the Police Department and after going through the recruitment process his name was included in the selection/approval list for appointment against the said pest. Later on the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of selected candidates. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2018 with the direction to respondent No. 2 to inform the petitioner of the reasons for rejection of the petitioner . The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 but he did not adhere to the direction of this court and petitioner filed Crl. Org. No. 222347-W/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2018 in which report was submitted that petitioner was not recruited in police department by contending that competent authority has decided in principal that all those candidates who, during character verification have been found involved in criminal cases (either under-trial or acquitted on multiple grounds) shall not be appointed in Police Department as constable. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the petitioner has been nominated in case FIR, however , he was acquitted from the charge.
4. On the other hand, learned AAG submits that the petitioner has concealed the lodging of FIR against him, therefore, impugned order is justifiable keeping in view the Policy as well as Rule 12.18 of Police Rules, 1934.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Although the petitioner has been acquitted from the charge but while submitting his application for appointment against the post of constable it was incum bent upon him to disclose the factum of lodging of FIR against him but he failed to do so. The same proposition has come under consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No. 1668-L and 1852-L of 2012 wherein vide order dated 18.02.2013 the Hon'ble apex Court has held as under:-- "Admittedly when the respondent/petitioner Jabir Ali gave his application to the department for recruitment into police service, three Flits were pending against him and hence he falsely stated in such application that he was not involved in any criminal case. As police official should be honest and km abiding himself and subject to disciple.
Where, at the inception of his career , Respondent/petitioner had made a false statement for the purpose of recruitment into the farce, he cannot be expected to perform his duties honestly and diligently . Hence, he was correctly dismissed from service by the departmental authorities."
This matter also came under consideration in case-law titled Abdul Mianan v. Provincial Police Officer and 2 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 862 ), in which view taken by the Hon'ble apex Court was followed in the following way: "Appointment of constable in police department---Petitioner candidate was declined selection on the ground that he was found involved in a criminal case--Candidate had not mentioned in the application form that he was involved in a criminal case, which was concealment of fact---Mis-statement on the part of candidate before entering into service had shaken the credibility of his character and disentitled him from any relief-- No illegality was pointed out in the impugned order ---Intra-Court appeal was dismissed in limine in circumstances."
7. Even otherwise, this is a Policy decision taken by the Police Department for the purpose of recruitment of constables and this Court normally does not interfere in the Policy matters of the department unless same is arbitrary . Reliance is placed on case-law titled as "Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others" (PLD 2014 SC 01).
8. Further , it is settled principle of law that writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and cannot be exercised in favour of a person who comes to the Court with unclean hands. As the material fact has been concealed by the petitioner , therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It is also an established principle of law that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for the purposes of retention of ill-gotten gains. Reference may be made to case-law reported as "Justice Khur shid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of "Pakistan and another" (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 483). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below: "47. It is well-settled by now that "the object of the establishment and the continue d existence of the Courts of law is to dispense and foster , justice, and to right the wrongs. This purpose can never be completely achieved unless the injustice done was undone and unless the Courts stepped, in and refused to perpetuate what was patently unjust, unfair and unlawful. It is for this reason that the Courts have never permitted their judicial powers to be invoked or used for retention of illegal and ill-gotten gains. Nor have the Courts ever opted to exercise their powers in aid of injustice or to grant any relief to persons with unclean hands or for protecting the unethical or undeserved benefits". We cannot render any help to the applicants who were admittedly the consequent beneficiaries of the said unconstitutional, illegal and unethical actions. "There is no gain reiterating that superior Courts are not expected to act in aid of injustice and to perpetuate the illegalities or put a premium on ill-gotten gains."
9. Even otherwise, petitioner applied for the post of constable and perusal of record shows that there is a specific column in the application form signed by the petitioner which reads as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} Sequel to the above, this writ petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to cost.