1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- The Balochistan Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No,4/1995 invited applications to be filed before 25-4-1995 against various Posts including the Post of the Senior Registrar (Urology) in the Health Department. Petitioner being one of the candidates got entertained his application on 26-4-1995. It appears that an application of the even date seeking condonation of one day in submitting application form was also filed on 14- 5-1995. The Secretary of the Commission examined testimonials annexed with the application and vide order dated 28-5-1995 notified to petitioner that he has not been selected for interview for the following reasons:--
(a) You do not fulfil the condition of Educational Qualification;
(b) Your application was received after the expiry of the last date; ' M/s. Basharatullah and S.A.M. Quadri counsel for petitioner contended that he did appear in Examination for M.S. Urology at the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Dow Medical College on 20-4-1995 and was declared unofficially successful in the examination as per Certificate issued on 22-4-1995 by the Director of the Institution. As yet the University had not issued Notification in this behalf, therefore, to satisfy the requirement of the Public Service Commission said Certificate was attached with the Application Form. Although subsequently on 30-4-1995 petitioner also succeeded in getting Provisional Certificate from the University of Karachi in which it was mentioned that the petitioner has passed his examination but his result shall be declared after the approval of the BASR. Likewise the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council in view of the Certificate referred to hereinabove provisionally registered the petitioner for one year as per Certificate dated 8-5-1995. All these documents were placed on the file of Public Service Commission before passing impugned order but the selection of the petitioner being not qualified for the post has wrongly and arbitrarily been rejected. Reliance was placed on PLD 1994. Lahore 55.
2. ' In this behalf it would be significant to note that unofficial respondent Dr. Sheikh Hidayatullah being one of the rival candidates got himself impleaded as party in instant proceedings on filing application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. Because petitioners' counsel did not object on allowing the application. Alongwith the said application he filed a Certificate from the University of Karachi dated 11-6-1995 issued by Registrar BASR. Relevant contents therefrom are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Please refer to your application in respect of the case of Dr. Haq Nawaz, a candidate for M.S. In Urology.
3. ' It is hereby certified that Dr. Haq Nawaz s/o Abdul Hameed was appeared in the examination of M.S. In Urology held by the University of Karachi on 20-4-1995. The Official Result has not been declared by this University till today."
4. ' Mr. Zafar Khan Mandokheil counsel for respondent contended that except the Official Result announced by the University by means of a Notification or issuing Provisional Certificate by the Competent Authority no other document to testify the qualification of a person holding Pass Certificate of an examination would be admissible under the law. He also made reference to an unreported judgment of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,7218 of 1993. In this case, the Hon"ble Single Bench declined to accept the Provisional Certificate issued by the Principal of Veterinary Medicines of College of Veterinary Science, Lahore and opined that except the University, none else is competent to issue such Certificate. A perusal of the document suggests that petitioner did appear in the examination of M.S. Urology held on 20th April, 1995, in pursuance whereof, the concerned Head of the Department declared him as successful, but the Notification was not issued for want of deliberations by the Board commonly known as BASR, constituted by the University for declaring the results of Post-Graduate Examinations. In our opinion the Public Service Commission, instead of disqualifying the petitioner on this score could have referred the matter to the University of Karachi for the verification of Certificate or for testifying whether the petitioner can be treated as qualified in view of the Certificate issued by the concerned Director etc. Of the Institution. It is noteworthy that Pakistan Medical Dental Council, registered the petitioner temporarily for a period of one year on 8th May, 1995, as M.S. Urology. Such Certificate itself is sufficient to conclude that petitioner possesses requisite qualification. In this behalf it is noteworthy that non-appending of qualification Certificate alongwith the application form by the Candidate would itself not render the application incomplete, because the Commission even at a later stage can call upon a candidate to submit the Certificate. In this behalf, reference can be made to Habibur Rehman v.
5. Government of Pakistan and others, 1979 SCMR p.
121. In this report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that filing of a Domicile Certificate by the petitioner from Political Agent after the prescribed date for interviewing the candidate would not debar him from applying for admission, if otherwise entitled so to do. It was also observed that such Certificate should have been produced before announcement of the list of candidates, granted admission. Applying the same principle we are inclined to hold that the impugned order to the extent of disqualifying the petitioner due to non-filing of necessary testimonials to prove his qualification to hold the post, is without lawful authority.
6. ' Now adverting to the important question relating to the submission of application by the petitioner, a day after the due date i,e, 25th April, 1995. In this behalf there is a glaring contradiction in the stand of petitioner taken by him in his pleadings. Firstly in para. 5 it was urged on his behalf that he submitted his application form alongwith all the requisite annexures is the office of respondents on 25th April, 1995 to Mr. Mushtaq Hussain, Secretary of the Commission, in presence of Controller of Recruitment but he did not receive the application and returned the same to him stating that Provisional Certificate for passing M.S. Urology and registration of M.S. Urology with P.M.D.C. Have not been attached. It is to be observed that according to the advertisement, application forms were to be purchased from the office of Commission, on payment of Rs,20 besides depositing application fee of Rs,20 in the State Bank under the head, number of which was mentioned in the advertisement. Had the, petitioner approached the office of Commission, he would have first of all deposited the fee and then had gone to the office of Commission for submission of papers. The petitioner had himself attached a receipt bearing No, 187, which shows that the application was filed by him on 26th April, 1995. When he also got deposited Rs,20 in the State Bank.
7. ' Mr. Basharatullah learned counsel stated that petitioner could not reach Quetta on 25th April, 1995, therefore, he submitted his form on 26th April, 1995, but when his attention was drawn to the application bearing date 26th April, 1995, submitted by petitioner to the Chairman, Balochistan Public Service Commission, for the condonation of delay of one day, in which it was mentioned that on 25th April, 1995, he could not reach due to non-availability of his Professor at Karachi to take Provisional Certificate, then how it was possible to submit the application form to the Secretary of the Commission on 25th April, 1995. Learned counsel had no satisfactory answer, except saying that this application though was dated 26th April, 1995, but was moved on 14-51995 for the condonation, however he asked for adjournment to take necessary instructions. Accordingly on the next date a rejoinder was filed to the parawise comments of Public Service Commission, in which, the contents of the above-noted application were noted and a categoric stand was taken that he did not appear before the Commission on 25th April, 1995. However in the rejoinder it was stated that petitioner obtained the Certificate (Annexure 'A') to the petition and other testimonials from the Institution of Karachi on 22nd April, 1995 and he reached Quetta on 24th April, 1995 and submitted the form on 25th April, 1995, but same was returned. This statement again appears to be contradictory to his own application dated 26th April, 1995, as well as the contents of para.5 of the petition. In this behalf, it is also to be borne in mind that petitioner had no justification to stay at Karachi for obtaining necessary testimonials from his Professor, because such Certificate he had already received as back as on 22nd April, 1995. During arguments, Mr. Basharatullah, Advocate, specifically took the stand that for all intent and purposes, application form was submitted on 26th April, 1995, but on the next date he pointed out that above statement was made by him without seeking instructions from petitioner. Be that as it may, the contents of the receipt obtained by petitioner on submission of application form, the photostat copy of the challan in respect of depositing Rs,20 with the State Bank as well as the application filed by petitioner for condonation of delay, abundantly makes it clear that the application was submitted on 26th April, 1995.
8. ' At this juncture, Mr. Basharatullah, Advocate, on making reference to various provisions of the Balochistan Public Service Commission Act, 1978 and the rules framed thereunder, stated that the Commission has no statutory powers to fix the date of filing the application by the candidate to take examination or to appear for interview.
9. ' We are afraid the contention so raised by learned counsel, has no force, because the Commission has been assigned function under Act 1978 to manage the examination through tests or interviews, in respect of posts which are required to be filled up by the Provincial Government through Public Service c Commission, therefore, in fixing the schedule of written examination or interview or calling applications up to a particular date, the Commission performs a statutory function under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Thus, we have to examine whether submitting applications by private persons (candidates) on or before a particular date, creates a statutory obligation upon them to do so or otherwise. It is a settled principle of interpretation that where time is essence to do a particular thing and on the basis whereof, a right has been claimed, the provisions would be of mandatory in its nature and if no right is claimed the provisions would be non-mandatory. In this behalf, it would be appropriate to refer the Interpretation of Statutes by Bindra (7th Edition, 1984) page 678 wherein while discussing the effect of direction to do a particular thing within a specified time, reference was made to Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 59 at pages 1078 and 1079. Relevant portion concerning the disposal of instant case from Corpus Juris, for convenience is reproduced herein below:-- "As a general proposition, the rule with respect to statutory directions to individuals is the opposite of that which obtains with respect of public officers. When a statute directs things to be done by a private person within a specified time and makes his rights dependent on proper performance thereof, unless the failure to perform in time may injure the public or individuals, the statute is mandatory. When an individual is the person not complying, he has no grounds for complaint.
10. Under statutes of procedure, failure to complete required steps within the time specified is fatal to the case."
11. ' In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that Public Service Commission in exercise of its statutory powers had fixed 25th April, 1995, the last date of submission of application forms and as the petitioner being a candidate was claiming his selection for the post of Senior Registrar, Urology, therefore, he had a statutory obligation to submit application on or before the fixed date. Since he failed to fulfil his obligation therefore, on the basis of application which was submitted later on, in respect, whereof as well, he took different stands, as it has been observed herein above, no grievance legitimately can be placed by him. Thus we are of the opinion that the Commission was within its lawful authority and jurisdiction to refuse selection of petitioner for interview.
12. ' Before parting with the judgment we would like to observe that during hearing of petition, the application form submitted by petitioner was shown to us on which an endorsement of 25th April, 1995, under the initials of Secretary, Public Service Commission was noticed. The learned Advocate- General as well as the Controller of Examinations could not satisfy the Court that when it is the petitioner's own case that his application was not received on 25-4-1995 which as per Report No, 187 he submitted on 26-4-1995, then how his application, will be deemed to have been entertained on 25-4-1995 with the endorsement which reads as under:-- "He gave it personally to me but it is without challan form."
13. ' It appears that some attempt was made to temper with the record of Commission. Under these circumstances, the least we can say is that public has got much faith and reliance in the proceedings of Commission, but if in such a manner tempering with the record is allowed to continue then there would be no sanctity in the actions/proceedings drawn by the Commission in selecting the candidates for higher posts. We expect that the Chairman as well as the Members of the Commission shall look into this respect of the case and will ensure that in future such wrong is not repeated.
14. ' In view of the above discussion, we are persuaded to hold that petition has no substance which is accordingly dismissed.
15. ' The Public Service Commission is allowed to fix the date for interview of the eligible candidates for the selection of Senior Registrar, Urology at its convenience.
16. ' No order as to costs.