' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 4-4-1996 whereby Writ Petition No,167 of 1996 filed by the petitioner was dismissed "as frivolous and vexatious and designed to cast aspersions on public authorities".
2. Petitioner appeared in C.S.S competitive examination held in the year 1994. He passed the written examination and was called for interview and viva voce test, was finally declared qualified and placed at serial No,367 in the overall merit position. He could, however, not be allocated any service/group in view of his low merit position amongst N.-W.F.P. Candidates.
3. It appears that on receiving the detailed marks sheet of his written examination and viva voce test, petitioner was not satisfied with the marks obtained by him in three papers, namely. English Essay, Constitutional Law and Islamiat. He, therefore, approached the Federal Public Service Commission for re-checking these papers. He was informed by the Commission vide letter dated 13th November, 1995 that the papers in question "have carefully been rechecked and no discrepancy has been found in the marking, totalling and posting of marks". Still not Satisfied, petitioner submitted another application to the Chairman of the Commission requesting, that he may himself be allowed to see his papers. This was followed by yet another application dated 19.12.1995 reiterating his request to "read my answer-books with my own naked eyes". Receiving no response to this request, petitioner approached the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction praying that "the respondent be directed to produce the subject marked papers of the petitioner before this hon'ble Court for comparison with the marks sheet".
4. In their para-wise reply, the Federal Public Service Commission stated that the papers in question were rechecked on the request of the petitioner but no discrepancy was found in the marking, totalling and posting of marks. As regards the petitioner's subsequent request for seeing his answer books personally, it was stated by the Commission that "his request cannot be acceded to in terms of para. 7 (viii) of the rules relating to Competitive Examination, 1994". An offer was, however, made by the Commission that ' the honourable Court can see for itself the marked Answer Books and compare the same with the marks shown in the marks, if deemed appropriate."
It appears from the impugned judgment that the petitioner took the stand before the learned Judge in the High Court that the marks on the papers in question had been wrongly tabulated. The learned Judge treating it as an exceptional case, in view of the concession made by the respondent in their parawise reply directed the respondent to make available the tabulation of the marks "subject to petitioner's depositing Rs,5,000".
5. Director (Examination) and Director (Secret) of the Federal Public Service Commission appeared in the High Court with sealed packet containing the papers in question which were examined by the learned Judge and it was found "The marking in the aforesaid papers was checked on each page separately and totalled with the computation made on the titled page. No discrepancy was found in the Marks Tabulation of aforesaid papers. The marks obtained by the petitioner in Islamiat, Constitutional Law and English Essay, as disclosed in his computerized result are the same as are contained in the answer books i.e, 40/100 Islamiat, 42/100 Constitutional Law and 26/50 English Essay". Writ petition was accordingly dismissed vide the impugned judgment with the observation that "Since the allegations of the petitioner have been found to be false, the security amount is forfeited which is to be forwarded to the Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad, as damages".
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at quite some length. It appears that the only grievance made by the petitioner in the High Court was that the marks were wrongly tabulated on his aforementioned three papers. As noted above, the learned Judge on examining the papers in question found no error/discrepancy in the tabulation of the marks and it was also observed that the marks obtained by the petitioner in these papers were duly mentioned in his computerized result. The findings recorded by the learned Judge after examining the papers in question are not open to any exception.
Learned counsel as a last resort sought to contend that the answer books brought in the High Court were not the genuine answer-books of the petitioner. The officers of the Commission instead produced fabricated answer-books to play fraud on the Court. Grievance made by the learned counsel was that the answer-books produced in the High Court were not shown to the petitioner or his counsel despite the request made in that behalf. Such a request is not shown to have been made as it is not borne out from the impugned judgment. Even otherwise, we were not impressed by the plea sought to be canvassed before us and we asked the petitioner present in Court if he'had any enmity with the officers who produced the answer-books in the High Court. His reply was in the negative. We are satisfied that the papers brought in the Court were those of the petitioner and the Senior Officers of the Commission had no reason to produce fabricated/fake papers/answer books in the court.
7. In view of what has been said above, there is no merit in this petition.
' Leave sought is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.