This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeks a direction to the Punjab Public Service Commission for adding four marks in favour of petitioner and preparing a fresh merit list of the successful candidates for the post of Associate Professor (Paediatrics) in the Health Department, Government of the Punjab.
2. The Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore (hereinafter called the Commission) invited applications for the two posts of Associate Professor (Paediatrics). Dr. Muhammad Nazir Khan, the petitioner who was serving as Assistant Professor (Paediatrics), King Edward Medical College, Lahore also applied for the post. Only two candidates, namely, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were interviewed and recommended by the Commission for appointment against the said two posts. In order of merit, respondent No.3 was, however, given precedence over the petitioner. This sequence of merit caused grievance to the petitioner as, according to him, the Commission had unlawfully and in violation of its own recognized policy deprived him of four marks to which he was entitled in the array of "Additional Qualifications, Distinctions and Achievements.". It is alleged that the grant of these marks would have reversed the order of merit determined by the Commission.
3. The Commission firstly claimed that the Manual of Policy relied upon by the petitioner was a privileged and classified document beyond any lawful access of the petitioner and that as 'such the petitioner could not draw any benefit out of it. Secondly, it was stated that it lay in absolute discretion of the Commission to allow or not to allow additional marks for the extra-curricular activities claimed by the petitioner.
4. On factual plane, the Commission's contentions regarding the provisions of the Manual of Policy tend to be evasive in that the Commission did not give specific reply about the allocation or break- up of additional marks for extra-curricular activities nor did it specifically deny the effect of Policy Decision No.21 of the Manual of Policy Decisions or paragraphs Nos.8 and 13 of P.D. No.21. It has, therefore, the effect of admission -of respondent No.2 i.e. The Commission, to the extent of P.D. No.21 of the Manual of Policy Decision.
5. As to the certificates in support of extra-curricular activities relied upon by the petitioner, the denial is two-fold. The Commission stated that on previous occasions when the petitioner applied for other inferior posts he did not claim the benefit of such extra-activities and by virtue of this omission the certificates lose their genuineness. On the other hand it was also maintained that the certificates of the petitioner related to the pre-medical studies and these activities were not continued by the petitioner in the Medical College and that for these reasons the Commission, in its discretion, did not consider it fit to award additional marks to the petitioner for this claim.
6. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner about the evaluation of the merit of the contesting candidates basically relates to the question as to what is the statutory authority of the Manual of Policy Decisions framed by the Punjab Public Service Commission with respect to the allocation of marks and whether their provisions have to be applied to the petitioner and respondent No.3 in assessing their merit.
7. It appears that the Public Service Commission, has from time to time taken Policy Decisions and framed regulations and compiled the same as Manual of Policy decisions to regulate the award of marks to candidates recruited for various posts and services. A copy of Policy Decision No.21 has been placed on record by the petitioner in an attempt to show that according to these instructions the Commission was under statutory duty to award marks in addition to the usual academic and viva voce assessm ent. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that by departing from these provisions the Commission had, to the serious prejudice of the petitioner deprived him of four valuable marks and thus brought him down to respondent No.3 in order of seniority. While dealing with these contentions the Commission has taken the view that the Manual and Regulations were merely directions for the internal and indoor Management of the Commission and no person had a vested right in them.
8. The Commission is a statutory body which owes its Constitution to the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978. It performs functions and regulates its procedure within the ambit of the law and the rules framed thereunder. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the regulations and decisions meant for internal working must also conform to the authority prescribed by law because all statutory bodies and functionaries are under an obligation to act in accordance with the law and relevant rules and any deviation from such law or rules would render their acts without lawful authority so as to attract power of judicial review.
9. It is by now an established principle that although a rule requires to be expressed with! Precision and yet to possess generality so as to be capable of application to a large number of cases, and ordinarily it is necessary also that the making and promulgation of a rule should be attended by certain formalities yet instructions embodied in departmental memoranda and, in some cases, an established procedure consistently observed by the department can operate as rules if they possess these characteristics. If such a rule is capable of amendment, it could be so amended by the competent authority by means of instructions embodied in a manual, circular or memoranda.
10. There is no denial to the fact that the Manual of Policy Decisions and other Regulations were framed by the Commission for the purpose of regulating its procedure for the recruitment, discipline etc. Of the candidates for various posts under the Punjab Government to be filled in through the Commission. Even at bar it has not been controverted that the practice and procedure of the Commission generally conforms to these Policy Decisions and Regulations. All these circumstances show that in formulating the Decisions/Regulations the intention of the Commission was clearly to prescribe recruitment rules in sufficiently precise, and yet general terms, so as to form part of recruitment rules applicable to various posts and services for initial recruitments. It would not, therefore, be correct to regard the impugned Policy Decision No. l as being only in the nature of instructions for internal and indoor management of the Commission.
11. There is yet another aspect of the matter in relation to the exercise of discretion by the Commission. It certainly lies in the discretion of the Commission to formulate lawful Policy Decision or Regulations for the grant of additional marks, but once it has framed such a Decision or Regulations and so long as the Decision or Regulation stands, no discretion is left with the Commission to refuse its application. The Commission was, therefore, under a lawful obligation to act according to Policy Decision No .21 for allocation of marks to the candidates for the post in question.
12. A reference may also be necessary to the contention of the Commission that the certificates of extra-curricular activities relied upon by the petitioner are not reliable because he did not claim the benefit of such activities nor produced any such certificate when he previously submitted applications for other posts. The Commission in this behalf proceeded merely on presumption. The mere fact that an activity was not previously claimed or a certificate in support of it was not produced cannot affect the genuineness of the claim made at a subsequent stage. The genuineness of a claim or document is a question of fact to be determined on its own factual merit and not by an inference based on a presumption.
13. As a result of the above, the writ petition is accepted and the respondent Commission is directed to assess the order of merit of the petitioner and respondent No.3 by allocating additional marks in the light of the relevant provisions of Policy Decision No.21, subject of course to the scrutiny and validity of the certificates or testimonials relied upon by any candidate.