Dr. Khurshid J.
1. The petitioner contends that he has been working as a constable in the Police Department since 30.03.2011. Further alleges that vide Advertisement No.05/2019, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission ("the Commission") invited applications from the existing police personnel for fast track promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (BPS-11) in the Police Department. His contention is that he applied for the posts, but his application was rejected by the Commission for the reason that he did not possess the required experience (vide letter No.PSC/Cond-11/034958, dated 02.08.2022). He, thus, petitioned before this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to declare the aforementioned letter null and void and to issue a writ to the respondents to allow him to compete for the posts on merit.
2. In their comments, the respondents stated that a minimum of 05 years service in the Police Department was one of the prerequisites for the eligibility of the candidates desirous of applying for the posts. The candidates, they continued, were required under Regulation 12(a) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2017 ("Regulations") to clearly mention their experience in online application forms. However, the petitioner failed to do so and, therefore, in terms of Regulation 8(a) of the Regulations, his application was rejected.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Record shows that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working in the Police Department since 30.03.2011. It is also not in dispute that he had applied for the posts. The dispute only revolves around the rejection of his application in terms of clause (a) of Regulation 8 of the Regulations which provided for the rejection of incomplete applications as also those containing incorrect information. It transpires that the Commission has deleted the aforesaid Regulation on 25.03.2022 and it rejected the application of the petitioner on 02.08.2022. It implies that by the time the application of the petitioner was rejected, the Regulation was not in the field, having been deleted by the Commission itself. Hence, when the very Regulation was no more a part of the Regulations, then, of course the rejection of an application on its strength was without jurisdiction.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner produced an attested copy of judgment, dated 09.05.2023, passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.2759- P/2023. Perusal of the judgment shows that the petitioner stood as a candidate for the same position as advertised by the Commission through the Advertisement No.05/2019. Triggering clause (a) of Regulation 8 of the Regulations, the Commission rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the same reason, that is, non-disclosure of the experience in the online application. The candidate, then, filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed for the reason that the relevant part of the Regulation has been deleted by the Commission pursuant to an amendment it had made on 25.03.2022. The Commission was, thus, directed to consider his candidature in accordance with law.
6. Learned A.A.G. produced the copies of judgments passed by this Court in Writ Petitions No.1080- A/2019, 4273-P/2020, and 2482-P/2021 and judgment, dated 19.04.2021, passed by the Supreme Court in CP No.115- P of 2021. The contention of the learned A.A.G. is that the non-mentioning of the experience in the application form implied that the petitioner did not claim it, rather withheld the same, hence, he cannot subsequently be allowed to make a volte face. We have perused the judgments. No doubt, in all these cases, the candidatures were rejected by the Commission for the reason that they had not mentioned and/or claimed their experience in the online application forms. The writ petitions against the decision of the Commission also stood dismissed by this Court.
The Supreme Court also upheld the decision of this Court. Nevertheless, the deletion of the relevant clause in the Regulations by way of amendment has changed the situation altogether. It follows that the instant case has distinguishing facts and circumstances. By the time the candidatures of petitioners in the aforesaid cases were rejected by the Commission, the above stated Regulation was in the field. In the instant case, the very Regulation by virtue of which the Commission rejected the application of the petitioner is no more in the field. Rather, it was already deleted by the Commission through an amendment on 25.03.2022. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, the law laid down in the judgments (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.
7. For these reasons, we hold the impugned letter, dated 02.08.2022, as void ab-initio for being without jurisdiction and direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with law and rules. If he fulfills the eligibility criteria, he be allowed to compete for the subject posts strictly on merit and according to law. This petition succeeds and is allowed in the above terms.