' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---The petitioner, herein seeks review of the judgment of this Court titled Muhammad Shakeel Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission and others (Civil Appeal No.77 of 1998 pronounced on 11-8-1998), whereby the appeal filed by Muhammad Shakeel Khan, respondent No.1 herein, was accepted and the impugned order passed by the High Court to the extent of direction to the Public Service Commission for hearing as well as determining the merits of the parties afresh, was set aside.
2. The necessary facts, forming the background of the present review petition are that respondent No.1 was recommended for appointment against one of the posts of Assistant Directors/Social Welfare Officers alongwith two other persons whose recommendations are not disputed in the case. In pursuance of advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission in Daily Nawa-e- Waqt on 13-10-1996, the respondent applied for one of the three posts of Assistant Director/Social Welfare Officers (B-17) reserved for Poonch District.
3. The Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as the Commission) conducted the test and interview and later on vide its Handout, dated 3-12-1997, declared Muhammad Shakeel Khan besides Muhammad Liaqat Khan and Sheraz Khan, suitable for the post of Assistant Director/Social Welfare Officer Poonch and made its recommendations accordingly.
4. The respondent apprehending that due to the influence of some influential persons the Commission may change its result, filed a writ petition in the High Court and also obtained an order of status quo on 16-12-1997. On the same day a notification was issued by the Commission, whereby instead of Muhammad Shakeel Khan, respondent No.1 herein the name of Muhammad Farooq Khan, petitioner was included in the list of those who were recommended for appointment.
The respondent, thus, was constrained to seek an amendment in the writ petition which was allowed by the High Court. Finally he filed an amended writ petition on 1-1-1998. In the written statement filed by respondent therein it was admitted that in the first Handout issued by the Commission respondent No.1 was declared suitable alongwith other two candidates for three posts of Assistant Directors/Social Welfare Officers. However, it was explained that a candidate from District Bagh moved an application before the Commission for rechecking of his marks. Resultantly all the results were again scrutinised. During the rechecking it came to the notice of the Commission that the petitioner had mentioned in his application that he got first position in the University. The certificate which he had appended with his application in support of his case was vague and not legible. Due to this reason he was directed to provide another certificate in support of his claim that he got first position in the University. On demand he produced attested copy of the certificate. He, therefore, was held entitled to extra marks. When these marks were added in his remaining marks he got preference over the respondent as such was accordingly recommended.
5. Arguing the case on behalf of petitioner, it was vehemently contended by Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that under the terms of advertisement the Commission was legally justified to ask from any candidate to furnish any proof in support of his claim. The learned counsel vehemently urged that the said certificate which was earlier pointed out to be a vague and illegible was part of the application of the petitioner which was submitted before the Commission. The same was also before the High Court alongwith his written statement as Annexure 'RB', and also placed on record of this Court alongwith the concise statement as Annexure "RA", but it was termed as vague document which was not legible and for this reason the Commission provided the petitioner an opportunity of furnishing the said document later on. After furnishing the said document the Commission accepted it as genuine document and maintained the first position of the petitioner.
6. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the said certificate on which the petitioner places his reliance should have been furnished by him to the Commission on or before 10-11-1996, as was demanded in the advertisement published in the Daily Nawa-e-Waqt, dated 13-10-1996. After the aforesaid date no document could have been produced as in that event the application was treated to be as incomplete. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal also urged that the Commission was not legally competent to demand from the petitioner any certificate after the above referred date. The learned counsel further argued that the comission was not legally competent to change its result, which was finalised earlier by it and that too without providing an opportunity of being heard to those who were to be affected adversely. It was also emphasized by the learned counsel that on the basis of recommendations made by the Commission a right had vested in the respondent which was snatched away in the arbitrary way. It was observed by this Court at page 10 of the judgment under review that the application of the petitioner on the stipulated day i.e. 10-11-1996 was incomplete and the same should not have been considered after the lapse of the time fixed for the purpose.
7. After giving our due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment under review, this fact remains admitted from both the sides that at the time of test and interview the copy of certificate which was sent by the petitioner to Public Service Commission was vague and not legible. The petitioner alongwith others was interviewed by the Commission. Subsequently he was required by the Commission to support his claim that he got first position in the University as previous proof submitted by him alongwith his application was found vague. This factor that on demand of the Commission a new certificate was produced before the Commission by the petitioner on the basis of which he instead of respondent No.1 was recommended alongwith two other persons, is indicative of the fact that by sending alongwith the original A application a copy of certificate which was not legible shall be construed that petitioner's original application was not complete and on the due date his application could not be considered as the same was incomplete. Thus, the marks which were given to the petitioner on the basis of subsequent certificate were not validly allowed to him.
8. It is also admitted position between the parties that the finding with regard to the vagueness of the certificate of the petitioner was given by the Commission itself. This finding of the Commission could not have been substituted either by the High Court or by this Court. So, once that finding was given and the recommendations were made, the Commission was not vested with any jurisdiction to change the previous recommendations and to give subsequent recommendations.
9. In our judgment under review we have made the following observations in para. No.11, which may usefully be reproduced:-- "It becomes evident from the analysis of the case law that on the basis of test and interview conducted by the Commission the appellant (respondent No.1 herein) was declared successful for one of the posts of Assistant Directors/Social Welfare Officers reserved for District Poonsh and his name was shown in the merit list but ultimately on the basis of a document which was obtained on 9-12-1997 and placed on record of the Commission on 16-12-1997 could not have been considered by the Commission as the application of respondent No.4 (petitioner herein) on the stipulated date i.e. 10-11-1996 was incomplete and the same should not have been considered after a couple of days. Thus, it follows that the Commission was not justified to retrace its steps having once decided in favour of appellant (respondent No.1 herein) on the relevant date."
10. Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, having not pointed out any patent error or defect in the judgment under review, the same, therefore, entails dismissal. We, therefore, order accordingly without passing any order as to costs.
Revision .