' Brief facts out of which the present I.C.A. Arises are that the appellant submitted application in obedience of the advertisement made by the respondent No,1 for the post of Principals/Senior Headmistresses/Senior Subject Specialists in BS.18. The appellant was selected in interview and test conducted by respondent No,1 and appointment letter was issued to the appellant by the respondents on 21-6-1997. Consequently, appellant was posted as Deputy District Education Officer, Jaranwala and joined accordingly on 4-7-1997. Respondents received a complaint against the appellant. Punjab Public Service Commission initiated proceedings against the appellant.
Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and appellant submitted reply of the show-cause notice. Respondent No,1 found That the appellant was guilty of furnishing false information to the Punjab Public Service Commission and secured selection on the basis of bogus degree.
Consequently recommendation was withdrawn by the Public - Service Commission vide order, dated 13-8-1999. Subsequently respondents Nos,2 and 3 reverted the appellant from the aforesaid post. The appellant being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,15505 of 1999 challenging the vires of the aforesaid orders of the respondents which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment, dated 5-6-2000 on the ground that the matter relates to the terms and conditions of service and the writ petition is not maintainable by virtue of bar of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution. Hence the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge was erred in law to dismiss the writ petition as the appellant has challenged the vires of the basic order of the Public Service Commission, dated 13-8-1999 against which the appellant has no remedy to challenge the same before the Service Tribunal as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Muhammad Suleman Waris's case (PLD 1997 SC 382). He further submits that order, dated 16-8- 1999 passed by respondents Nos,2 and 3 which was also impugned in writ petition was merely consequential in nature and passed by respondents without application of mind. He further submits that the respondent No,1 Public Service Commission has no authority whatsoever under the provisions of the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978, (II) of 1978 and the Punjab Public Service Commission .(Function Rules), 1978 read with Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 to withdraw the recommendations after sending the same to the competent authority for appointment of person. He further submits that respondents Nos,2 and 3 merely acted and countersigned the order of respondent No,1, dated 13-8-1999. Therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as respondents Nos,2 and 3 have to initiate proceedings against the appellant independently to verify the facts under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Therefore, same is hit by principle of natural justice.
He further submits that order of respondent No,1 is also hit by principle of natural justice as the respondent No,1 did not issue show-cause notice qua the ground on the basis of which the order was passed against the appellant. He further submits that principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in the present case but the respondents did not consider this aspect of the case. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1969 SC .407 (Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi's case). He further submits that the appellant was eligible at the time of issuing appointment letter.
Therefore, impugned order of respondent No,1 is without lawful authority. He further submits that Punjab Public Service Commission promulgated regulations without amending Punjab Service Commission Regulations, 1992. Therefore, respondent No,1 has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter by virtue of sections 4 and 6 of the General Clauses Act to initiate proceedings against the appellant on the basis of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulation, 1992. He further submits that appellant attached provisional certificate alongwith the application before respondent No,1 issued by Jamia Salfia Ahl-e-Hadees, Faisalabad, dated 20-1- 1997 whereas the complaint filed against him that appellant submitted certificate issued by Jamia Anwar-ul-Qur'an-wa-Taleem-ul-Binat Jamia Masjid Muhammadi Ahl-e-Hadees. He further submits that respondent took action against the petitioner on account of mala fide as is evident from the contents of the writ petition.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record ourselves. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the order of respondent No,1 to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "(3) In the memorandum and during the personal hearing you flatly denied that you had ever submitted any degree or certificate issued by Jamia Anwar-ul-Qur'an-wa-Taleem-ul-Binat Jamia Masjid Muhammadi Ahl-e-Hadees (Regd.). Mohalla Islamabad, Okara and asserted that you were held eligible and interviewed on the basis of a provisional certificate issued by Jamia Salfia Ahl-e- Hadees, Faisalabad (also an affiliate of Wafaq-ul-Mudaris) on 20th February, 1997. This knocked out your candidature on the basis of the certificate issued by Jamia Anwar-ul-Qur'an-wa-Taleern- ul-Binat Jamia Masjid Muhammadi Ahl-e-Hadees (Regd.), Mohalla Islamabad, Okara.
(4) Moreover, your assertion appears to be based on falsehood because the certificate issued by Jamia Salfia Ahl-e-Hadees, Faisalabad clearly mentions that the examination which was the basis of this certificate was held from 18-1-1997 to 23-1-1997. This certificate could by no stretch of imagination be the certificate/degree mentioned in your letters received in the Commission's office on 26-12-1996 and 30-12-1996 which have been referred to in paragraph No,1 above. It clearly implies that you submitted a bogus certificate issued by Jamia Anwar-ul-Qur'an-wa-Taleern-ul- Binat Jamia Masjid Muhammadi Ahl-e-Hadees (Regd.), Mohalla Islamabad, Okara to acquire eligibility and the, submission of the provisional certificate issued by Jamia Salfia Ahl-e-Hadees, Faisalabad is a patent afterthought. As such you are guilty of furnishing false information to the Punjab Public Service Commission and secure selection/appointment on the basis of bogus and inadmissible documents. As such you are guilty of grievous misconduct.
(5) Your assertion made during the personal hearing that you were held eligible, called for interview and selected for appointment on the basis of the provisional certificate issued by the Jamia Salfia Ahl-eHadees, Faisalabad be presumed to be true for the sake of argument, even then your candidature becomes unlawful because the examination which forms the basis of the certificate was held from 18-1-1997 to 23-1-1997 whereas the last date for the receipt of applications was 29-9-1996 which was the cutout date for acquiring any qualification pertinent to the issue of eligibility. This argument boils down to the fact that on 29-9-1996 which was the last date for the receipt of applications, you did not hold an M.A. Degree and on the basis of M.Ed. Degree alone you could not be considered to be an eligible candidate.
(6) The contents of the foregoing paragraphs make it manifestly clear that you are guilty of grievous misconduct inasmuch as you furnished false information to the Commission. Moreover, on the relevant date i,e, 29-9-1996 you were not an eligible candidate even if your own assertions be taken at face value. As such the Commission has decided to withdraw its recommendation for your direct appointment as Headmistress/Principal which recommendation was made vide the Commission's Letter No,PSCRE-1/971343-RE, dated 26-3-1997. It has also been decided that you will not be considered for selection/appointment through the Punjab Public Service Commission in future."
The aforesaid operative part of the impugned order of respondent No,1 clearly reveals that the same was passed after providing personal' hearing to the appellant after applying independent mind. The appellant failed to bring on record any material against respondent No,1 to show any malice. Even otherwise general allegation of mala fide is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saeed Ahmad Khan's case PLD 1974 SC '151 and Amanullah Khan's case PLD 1990 SC 1092. Therefore, Constitution petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by this Court in Saeed Nawaz's case PLD 1981 Lahore 371. The appellant was selected by respondent No,1 on the basis of the document filed by the appellant with his application regarding additional qualification which was found bogus subsequently by the respondents as is evident from the impugned order of respondent No,l. It is settled proposition of law that if the order is illegal then the perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of an illegal order and principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalal-ud-Din's case PLD 1992 SC 207. It is also settled proposition of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of the finding of the Tribunal below while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mussaduq's ease PLD 1973 Lahore 600. Respondent No,1 issued instructions for filing of application form to appear in the examination conducted by the respondent No,
1. The relevant instruction is reproduced hereunder:-- "The Commission reserves the right to withdraw recommendations of a selected candidate at any stage in service, if a candidate is found ineligible for the post."
' The aforesaid instruction shows that the respondent No,1 has authority to withdraw the recommendations made by respondent No,
1. The appellant is estopped to assail the validity of aforesaid instruction on the well-known principle of estoppel and waiver. We are fortified by the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court PLD 1971 SC 376 (Ghulam Rasool's case). The aforesaid proposition was also considered by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Mirza Irran Baig's case (1992 SCMR 2430) and observed as under:-- "Respondents appeared in the examination on the footing of this public notice and well-aware of its contents, as writ petitioners, it does not lie in their mouth to assail the validity of this provision."
' The appellant violated the following instructions issued by the respondent No,1 for filing of application form:- Canvassing in any form will disqualify a candidate.
(i) Knowingly furnishes any information which is false;
(ii) Suppresses material information,
(iii) Submits forged certificates.
Mere reading of the aforesaid instructions shows that appellant has violated the aforesaid instructions and concealed the material facts from respondent No,
1. Therefore, action of the respondent is in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Mustafa' s case 1983 SCMR 196. It is also settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. The appellant does not approach this Court with clean hands. We are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' PLD 1973 SC 236 (Nawabzada Ronaq Ali's case). 1998 SCMR 1462 (Rana Muhammad Arshad's case).
For the reasons above, we find no merit in the case as the appellant failed to point out that respondent No,1 has passed the order against the appellant in violation of rules and regulations of the respondent No, 1 . Therefore, writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akhtar Mir's case (1984 SCMR 433).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this I.-C.A. Has no merit and the same is dismissed.