Respondent No.l invited applications for appointment of Director, Agriculture Mechanization Research Institution Multan, and a post in BS-19. The petitioner and respondent No.3 applied for the post. The petitioner was appointed. However, respondent No. l withdrew the recommendation in favour of the petitioner vide letter, dated 14-3-1992. The petitioner tiled W.P. No.2790 of 1992. The same was accepted by Mr. Justice Irshad Hassan Khan, as his Lordship then was, vide judgment, dated 27-4-1992. The impugned order was declared to be without legal effect. The Commission (respondent No.l) as well as respondent No.3 filed I.C.As. Nos. 189 of 1992 and 164 Of 1992, which were heard together and accepted by a learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment, dated 22-3-1994. The result was that the case was remitted to respondent No. l for fresh decision in the light of the observations in the judgment of the learned Division Bench. Respondent No. l thereafter passed order, dated 15-6-1994 holding that the petitioner knowingly concealed fact of his termination of services in his application form with a view to gain the benefit of 6 months and 16 days of experience and in the absence of which his application would have been rejected on the simple ground of lack of 3 years' requisite experience. The petitioner has challenged this order through the present writ petition, which was admitted 'to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who are represented.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer with Farm Machinery Institute NARC, PARC, Islamabad, on 2-9-1981 and served in that capacity upto 20- 12-1981. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Engineer with effect from 31-5-1984 and served in that capacity upto 19-8-1986 and then from 14-11-1990 to 30-5-1991, therefore, he ri8d the requisite experience of more than 3 years. It is added that the experience of the petitioner was accepted by respondent No.l, aswa s clear front page 2 of the written statement submitted by respondent No.l in I.C.A. No.164 of 1992. It is submitted that the period spent in the study of Ph. p. is also to be counted towards the service. It is explained that the petitioner proceeded for Ph.D. on 9-11-1986 and returned in November, 1990, therefore, this 4 years' period is to be added but the same was wrongly and illegally not considered by respondent No. l in working out the experience of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner: when reported for duty c-tine to know that in his absence the service has been terminated vide order, dated 16-11-1987 with effect from 19-8-1986 for unauthorized absence. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was accepted vide order, dated 3-7-1991 and he was reinstated while the period of absence was treated as extraordinary leave without pay etc. The petitioner submitted yet another application, which was accepted vide order, dated 30-10-1993 and tie period of absence was treated as on duty. It is explained that the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal was appointed as Senior 9tlgineer vide order, dated 12-11-1990 and he proceeded to join duty on 14-11-1990, therefore, the period of service of the petitioner has rightly been worked out by the Commission in the written statement, referred to above.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the cut out date for experience was 30th of May, 1991, the last date for receipt of the application. The petitioner did not possess requisite experience on this date. It is added that the petitioner made a misstatement in the application form, wherein he mentioned himself as regular employee of the PARC, whereas he has been appointed on ad hoc basis but not allowed to join duty on account of ban on appointments, therefore, this period could not be counted towards service. It is submitted that as the petitioner did not service, therefore, he was not paid salary for this period and this period could not be counted towards his experience.
4. Representative of PARC submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 12-11-1990 and he proceeded to joint duty on 14-11-1990. However, as in the meanwhile, ban on appointment was imposed, therefore, PARC through parent Ministry referred to the matter for information of the Establishment Division, who vide its letter, dated 4-2-1991 opined that the appointment of the petitioner was not covered by the ban, therefore, it was legal.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General argued with reference to the application form submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner had made a misstatement in respect of his status and the period of the ad hoc appointment could not be counted towards the experience. He has produced the original record including the application form, which was deemed necessary for adjudication of the issues involved, as per direction of the Court.
6. The learned counsel for the Commission argued that it was a case of misstatement, therefore, the petitioner stood disqualified. The order of the Commission is fully justified. In this behalf, he has referred to instructions for filling of application forms.
7.I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The Commission withdrew its earlier recommendation on the ground that the petitioner had made misstatement in order to get period of 6 months and 16 days included in his experience because without this period he was not completing 3 years service, which was the qualification. This position was clearly taken up by the Commission in para.6 of its decision under challenge, forwarded with letter dated 13-7-1994 appended as Annexure 'D'. The same is reproduced as under:-- "(6). After hearing both the parties in detail, taking into account all the relevant facts and the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Lahore High Court while accepting the two connected I.C.As., the Full Commission is of the view that Dr. Munir Ahmad knowingly concealed his status of termination of the services in his application form with a view to gain the benefit of 6 months and 16 days of experience in the absence of which his application would have been rejected on the very simple ground of lack of 3 years requisite experience."
8. The fact of the matter, as admitted by the representative of the PARC, is that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 12-11-1990 and he was allowed duty on 14-11-1990. Thereafter, the question arose as to whether the appointment is valid in view of the ban imposed by the Federal Government, in the meanwhile. Accordingly, through the parent department a reference was made to Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, which notified vide memo., dated 4-2-1991 that appointment of the petitionerwas not hit by the ban. This is not all. The Commission in para. 2(c)(i) of its written statement filed in I.C.A. No. 164 of 1902 has worked out experience. The relevant portion of the para. reads as under:-- The experience of Respondent No. l counted for eligibility by the answering respondent No.2 is detailed as under:- YM D
(i) As Assistant Engineer2-9-1981000318 with Farm Machineryto Institute NARC, PARC, 20-12-1981 Islamabad.
(ii)Senior Engineer Farm31-5-19840202 18 Machinery Instituteto NARC,PARC,19-8-1986 Islamabad.
(iii)--ditto--14-11-1990 00 0616 to 30-5-1991 Total: 03 0022 In this view of the matter, the- basis as contained in para. 6 of the impugned decision of the Commission for withdrawing the recommendation in favour of the petitioner disappeared. The learned Additional Advocate-General contended that if looked with reference to column 14 of the form, the petitioner has failed to disclose that his services were terminated. Before adjudging this argument we have to refer to column 14 of the form, which reads as under:-- "(14)If you have been dismissed/removed from Government service under any provincial/Federal Government please given below details thereof, and attach all relevant documents where applicable."
It is clear from the same that the column pertained to Government service and it did not cover the service with the statutory body like the NARC, PARC, therefore, the argument is without merit.
However, it is high time that the Commission should consider amendment of column 14 so as' to include in its folds employees of statutory autonomous and local bodies as well as Banks and public limited companies.
9. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to subscribe to the impugned decision as the petitioner in spite of the termination of service had requisite experience. The calculation, reproduced above, made by the Commission is correct. I have the impression that after the judgment in the case reported as Dr. Munir Ahmed v. The Punjab Public Service Commission and 3 others (1992 PLC (CS) 992). The column 14 has been amended as under:------- DepartmentPost heldYear Dismissed or removed N.A.
This is comprehensive. If it is so then it would serve the purpose, otherwise the column requires amendment. -Besides this following sub-column may also be provided:--
1. (a)
Whether applicant wasBrief AllegationsResult ever proceeded under E&D Rules?
A copy of the show-cause notice and charge-sheet alongwith reply should be attached if the proceedings are still pending and, if finalized, copy of the last order.
2. (b) Whether the applicant has ever been adversely reported?
Adverse ReportGist of the adverseResult remarks
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.
The result is that the impugned order, dated 15-6-1994 of respondent No. 1 cancelling the recommendation in favour of the petitioner is set aside being illegal and without basis.