' RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---By way of this appeal the appellant has challenged, Notification No, Admin/A-9(16)/Sec-V/93, dated 12-5-1993 whereby the Notification No, Admin/A- 9(16)/Sec-V/93, dated 13-2-1993 was withdrawn and Notification No, Admin/A-9(16)/Sec-V/93, dated 18-1-1993 was restored.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant passed his Matriculation Examination from the University of the Punjab held in March, 1949 as a regular student of Islamia High School, Rawalpindi.
He joined Pakistan Air Force thereafter. During his services in Pakistan Air Force the appellant came to know that his date of birth was recorded in Recruitment Form as 8-4-1933 as against 8-4-1934 by mistake. He submitted an application for correction of his date of birth to the Authorities of Punjab University. The Syndicate. Of Punjab University in its meeting held on 16-12-1954 authorised Vice-Chancellor to correct the date of birth of appellant which was accordingly made. The appellant left Pakistan Air Force on 2-4-1960 and joined Police service. When he joined Police service the same date of birth as was initially recorded in the Pakistan Air Force-was entered in the Police service record. On the basis of service record the appellant was retired from service on 18-1- 1993. The appellant moved for correction of his date of birth and for the cancellation of the Notification of retirement. The Notification was withdrawn through Notification No, Admin/A9(16)/Sec-V/93, dated 12-5-1993 without issuing any notice to the appellant. The appellant filed review application against Notification dated 12-5-1993. The review application of the appellant remained undecided and the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal after the expiry of statutory period of ninety days.
3. The respondent has filed written objection and the Home Department has also submitted their comments. The claim of the appellant has been denied by the respondent.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. The appellant has appeared as his own witness and has given the statement in support of his claim as set up in the memorandum of appeal. The only objection raised against this evidence is that the appellant has failed to produce the record of School where the appellant sought first admission in Rawalakot. It may be true that the production of School record could strengthen the case of appellant and its non-production may raise a presumption that best evidence available has not been produced which factor may be taken against the appellant. When we go through the statement of appellant we find that the University Authorities corrected the date of birth of appellant on the inspection of original record of the School. Appellant has stated that the Authorities made quarries regarding his date of birth and register of admission and discharge was also sent for by the Authorities and was taken into consideration. We, therefore, do not agree with the counsel for respondent that the production of School record was necessary in this case and in its absence the appellant's evidence should be rejected.
6. The original Notification of retirement of appellant was issued on 18-1-1993. This Notification has never been challenged by the appellant before any competent Authority. The perusal of the record shows that instead of challenging the said notification the appellant submitted an application to Law Minister who referred the matter to Secretary, Services vide his note dated 301-1993. The Services Department started processing of the case in the light of the directions of Law Minister.
The Additional Chief Secretary (General) recorded the following note on 11-2-1993: {{URDU TEXT}}
7. The Services Department in view of the note of Additional Chief Secretary (General) issued Notification dated 13-2-1993. After issuance of this notification the matter was again processed' for getting its approval/confirmation from the Prime Minister. Before submitting this case to the Prime Minister the matter was again referred to Law Minister who recommended that correction of date of birth may be approved in accordance with the entry in Matriculation Certificate. The Prime Minister was pleased to refer this case to the Special Assistant Mr. Muhammad Yousuf who submitted a comprehensive note to the Prime Minister recommending that superannuation of the appellant be re-notified. The view of the Special Assistant was that the appellant's failure to produce his Matriculation Certificate issued in 1955 at the time of entry in service and waiting for the thirty-three years till the eve of his retirement to move the Authorities to rectify the mistake in his date of birth did not entiti him to give any consideration to his request and the Prime Minister was pleased to pass the following order:- {{URDU TEXT}}
8. The Prime Minister directed the withdrawal of the Notification dated 13-2-1993 and the restoration of Notification dated 18-1-1993. We have seen that the Notification dated 13-2-1993 was issued subject to confirmation by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister disapproved the proposal. There was hardly any reason to have recorded the restoration of the Notification dated 18-1-1993. The recording of this portion of Notification dated 12-5-1993 which relates to the withdrawal of Notification dated 13-2-1993 and restoration of Notification dated 18-1-1993 was unnecessary and redundant. The notification of retirement was issued by the Competent Authority and its cancellation was ordered on the direction of Additional Chief Secretary (General) who was incompetent to do so and whose proposal was not accepted. The matter could have been resolved by notifying that the Notification dated 13-2-1993 was withdrawn because of its disapproval by the Prime Minister. It can be said that there could be hardly any justification for providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant and, therefore, the contention of counsel for appellant that he has not been served with a notice is without any substance and is rejectea. It may be noted that the appellant instead of challenging the notification of retirement in accordance with the provisions of Appeal Rules, he submitted an application to the Law Minister who was not competent to receive or deal with this matter. The appellant appears to have manoeuvred the withdrawal of notification of his retirement through an officer who had absolutely no authority to order the cancellation of the notification. The person seeking the aid of Court should first establish that he is approaching the Court with clean hands. If it is proved that the person applied unethical means to get an order in his favour that person hardly deserves the assistance of the Court for resolution of his rights. The appellant adopted unscrupulous conduct in getting orders in his favour and he should expect the same treatment from the authorities which happened to decide his case. We, therefore, hold that the appellant was not entitled to be provided with an opportunity of personal hearing.
9. The notification of retirement was issued on 18-1-1993. If the appellant felt aggrieved by this notification he should have filed a review application before the Government. He has failed to do so. We have held above that the cancellation of Notification dated 18-1-1993 through Notification dated 13-2-1993 was made by an authority which was not competent to do so and the cancellation of original notification was void ab initio. The result is that the original Notification dated 18-1-1993 is in the field with full operative force. The failure of the appellant to challenge the original notification disentitles him to seek any remedy by way of appeal from this Tribunal. The appeal is also liable to be dismissed on this score.
10. In view of the above facts we are of the opinion that the appellant has no cause to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The appeal is without any substance, misconceived and incompetent.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal but make no orders as to costs.