' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.-This writ petition filed by Inamullah Khan petitioner, calls in question the order of Director-General, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar and Government of N.-W. F. P., respondents 1 and 2 herein, whereby the selection of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and his admission to the M. Sc. Forestry Course for the years 1983-85 in the Pakistan Forest Institute were cancelled.
2. The facts relevant for the purposes of this writ petition are that the petitioner was serving as Forest Range Officer, when in 1983 he was selected by the Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Conservator Forests and nominated on 30-11-1983 to join the Pakistan Forest Institute Peshawar for the M. Sc. Forestry Course for the year 1983-85. The petitioner was studying in the said Institute when his selection and nomination were cancelled vide order dated 2-1-1984, issued by respondent No, 1 on the instructions issued by respondent No, 2 on 29-12-1983. The petitioner has challenged both the said orders on the grounds ; firstly, that the petitioner had been selected by the Public Service Commission without any condition ; secondly, the question of scrutiny of his A. C.
Rs, did not arise as he did not appear before the Public Service Commission as nominee of Government ; and thirdly, his admission was cancelled without any show-cause notice to him.
3. The comments furnished by the respondents 2 and 3 disclose that the selection of the petitioner by the Public Service Commission was provisional and conditional subject to his A. C. Rs, being found satisfactory; that the petitioner was working as Range Officer at the time of his selection and his A. C. Rs, had to be examined ; and that his A. C. Rs, were not found satisfactory.
4. The petitioner was selected by the N.-W. F. P., Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests vide letter No, 6231, dated 28-11-1983. This letter states as under:- "The Commission has recommended you to the Government of appointment, but please do not treat this as letter of appointment for which Government is the final authority. The Commission cannot entertain any correspondence from you in this regard."
' Persuant to the aforesaid letter, the Government of N.-W. F. P. Vide their letter dated 30-11-1983, Annexure '13', allowed the petitioner to join M. Sc. Forestry Course 1983-85 session subject to the following conditions : "(i) He will furnish a bank draft for Rs, 15,000 pledged to the Chief Conservator of Forests, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar within a week's time positively.
(ii) His selection is confirmed by N.-W. F. P. Public Service Commission after perusal of his A. C. Rs,
(iii) He will appear before Standing Medical Board on 6 and 7-12-1983 at 9 a.m. In the office of Medical Superintendent Civil Hospital, Peshawar."
' However, for the purpose of this writ petition only condition (ii) is relevant, as his nomination was withdrawn by the Public Service Commission in view of his unsatisfactory record of service.
5. In so far as the contention that the selection of the petitioner by the Public Service Commission was unconditional, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the letter dated 28-11-1983 of the Public Service Commission does not disclose that his A. C. Rs, had to be consulted and that till then their recommendation was provisional. It was urged by the learned counsel that a decisive step had been taken by the Public Service Commission and his nomination having taken effect could not be cancelled, In this connection he relied upon the cases of Pakistan through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himyatullah Farukhi (1) and Dr. Umar Ali v. N.-W. F. P.
Province and 2 others (2). We have considered the contention of the learned counsel but we do not agree with him for the reason that the functions of the N.W. F. P. Public Service Commission as provided in section 6 of the N.-W. F. P. Public Service Commission Act, 1973 are to conduct tests and examinations for recruitment to such service and posts in connection with the affairs of the Province as may be prescribed. This authority as regards recommendation for appointment to a post or service can only be advisory. After conducting tests or examinations, the authority of the Public Service Commission extends only to making recommendation to the Provincial Government of candidates for appointment. A recommendation cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as a final selection when appointment is to be made by the Provincial Government and not by the Public Service Commission. A recommendation made by the Public Service Commission can be disregarded by the Government as it is advisory in nature and in this connection we may cite the case cf Dr. Habibur Rehman v. The West Pakistan Public Service Commission and 4 others (3). The very letter which was issued by the respondent No, 2 in respect of selection of the petitioner shows that although he was selectee of the N.-W. F. P. Public Service Commission but he was allowed to join M. Sc. Forestry Course on the condition that his
(1) PLD 1969 SC 407 (2) 1984 PLC (C S) 1569.
(3) PLD 1973 SC 144 selection is confirmed by the Public Service Commission after perusal of his A. C. Rs, and this was the letter in pursuance of which the petitioner joined the M. Sc. Forestry Course which would prove that he accepted the condition of his final selection after scrutiny of his A. C. Rs, The petitioner could not, therefore, claim any vested right of final selection on the mere recommendation of the Public Service Commission as the same being only advisory in nature. It shall thus be seen that the recommendation made in the Government by the Public Service Commission and his nomination to join the said Course were conditional and provisional and not final in any respect. It cannot, therefore, be asserted that in making recommendation to the Provincial Government the Public Service Commission had taken a final step and the principle of locus poenitentiae was attracted as claimed by the petitioner in this case on the basis of the aforesaid two authorities. We are very clear in our minds that selection and nomination of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and to join the M. Sc. Forestry Course were not final and an accomplished matter. As such the said nomination could be recalled by the Public Service Commission and selection could be cancelled by the Provincial Government.
6. In so far as the second point is concerned, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner had appeared in his private capacity for the said post and course. He was already in Government service and was selected for a higher post in the same department.
We cannot visualise that this selection was made in his private capacity. It is an established principle of service matters that a Government servant applying for another post under the Government could not do so in his private capacity. Moreover, the power of the Public Service Commission is not confined to only holding examinations or tests or interviews for selection of candidates for service under Government, but in order to determine the suitability of a candidate for any post or service it has the authority to examine his character rolls as well. Suitability for appointment to any responsible post in Government service cannot be decided without reference to character of the candidates. In this respect we may with advantage cite the case of The Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore through Its Secretary v. Ali Gul Khan and 4 others (1).
7. We have already held that the nomination and selection of the petitioner were not final and were provisional subject to his A. C. Rs, being satisfactory. This condition having not been successfully met, the selection of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled at any stage. This condition is very clear from the order of the Provincial Government dated 30-11-1983. The petitioner accepted his conditional selection and nomination which would clearly prove that he also did not consider his selection and nomination as final. Thus, he could not claim the accrual of any vested right of which he was deprived unilaterally. It cannot, therefore, be urged by the petitioner that the impugned action taken against him was without any notice. It was known to him that his final selection was subject to the scrutiny of his A. C Rs, and conversely it could be cancelled if his A. C. Rs, were found unsatisfactory. As such, no violation of the principle of natural justice has occurred in the present case.
8. The net result of the above discussion is that we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(1) 1976 SCM R 212