1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-Musaddaq Abed Shah appellant appeared in the Central Superior Service Examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1975. But eventually his candidature was cancelled by the Commission on the 26th of June 1976. He, therefore, challenged the validity' of the order by a writ petition whirls was he never, dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 14th of July 1976. He also failed in the Inter-Court appeal rejected by a Division Bench of that Court on the 15th of November 1976. This is his, appeal by special leave from the order and judgment passed by the High Court.
2. Briefly the relevant fact are these. The appellant obtained third Division in his Bachelor's Degree bat in order to improve upon his qualifi--cation he had joined studies in Law. In course of time he appeared in the LL. B. Examination in August 1975. But before the result of this exami--nation could be declared on the 10th of October 1975 he applied for admission to the Central Superior Service Examination and actually took the competitive examination held by the Public Service Commission, starling from 29th December 1975. In the meantime the result of his LL. B. Examination held in that year was declared in January 1976 and as it happened the appellant passed in five out of seven papers but failed in the remaining two papers. Therefore, in accordance with the rules of University he appeared in the remaining two paper, in the next succeed in examination held by it in Match 1976, In this manner he passed his LL. B. Examination and at his request its result was also confidentially communicated by the University to the Public Service Commission on 9-6-1976.
3. It was after this that he took his psychological as well as viva test held on 24-6-1976 arranged by the Commission and medical test on the 7th of July 1976.
4. In spite of this by a memorandum dated 26th of June 1976 from the Assistant Director Federal Public Service Commission, Karachi, addressed to i6e appellant his candidature for the competitive examination was cancelled. In this connection he was informed that: "On the basis of the information received from the University of the Punjab it is now clear that you append at your LL. B. Final examination after the closing dates for the receipt of application from candidates even from outside Pakistan Lo. 4-11-1975. Your case a not therefore, covered by Note(ii) below para. 5 of the Notice relating to the examination. As such pour candidature for the said examination is hereby cancelled."
5. The appellant questioned the validity -of this order by a constitutional petition filed under Artless 199 of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. But on 14-7-1976 a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court to Chambers dismissed the writ petition in limine on 14-7-1976. He was of the opinion that on a true interpretation of the relevant recruitment condition No. 5 (ii) of the Federal Public Service Commission he was rightly held to be ineligible for the Central Cavil Service Competitive Examination. He got his bachelor's Degree in third Division. Therefore, in relaxation of condition No. 5
(ii) supra he could improve upon his qualification by obtaining higher degree. In case he had already appeared at that examination for a higher degree before making the application for the competitive examination it could be provisionally entertained subject to his passing that examination. In this connection the learned Judge In Chambers remarked :-- "The examination at which the petitioner had appeared and the appearance at which enabled him to mate the application was held in August and he was placed in compartment. He again appeared in March the following year and thereafter qualified and became eligible It is clear that the examination to which reference is made and which enabled him to put an application in his failure and consequent ineligibility."
6. This order by the learned Single Judge was affirmed on inter Courts appeal of the appellant which was rejected to limine by a Division Bench of the High Court on 15-11-1976. The Court observed that In order to acquits the eligibility to sit at the competitive examination the appellant appeared in the regular LL. B. Examination in-August 1975. The result was announced In January 1976 but he could not pass the same and was placed in the compartment in two subjects. Therefore, his supplementary examination was held in March 1976 and its result was announced before 24-6- 1976 which was the date of his viva voce test for the Central Superior Service Examination. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted before the Division Bench that the qualifying examination taken by him was the LL. B. Examination which, even though, cleared by the appellant in two parts, remained one examination throughout and the supplementary examination subsequently taken by him could not be reckoned as a separate examination by itself. But the Court repelled the contention with the observations that :-- "Note (ii) talks of such an examination which was taken at the requisite time of application by candidates but who "have not been informed of the result". At the requisite time of application on the petitioner-appellant has not taken' any such examination result whereof had not been told to him. He took up the supple--mentary examination in March 1976 long after the requisite date of the application. Apart from this the supplementary examination was a separate examination by itself though it allowed concession to such students who had failed in some subjects earlier to clear those subjects in that i.e. Supplementary examination. Again, according to Note (ii) It should be such an examination result whereof was not yet declared. The result of annual examination had been declared, as mentioned ember long before the requisite date of application and the supplementary examination had not yet started. Looked at from whatever angle the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not cell for any interference."
7. Hence this appeal by special leave before us. We have beard the horned counsel for the parties.
8. Condition No. 5 of the Central Superior Service Examination under discussion, inter alia, lays down that a candidate must hold a Bachelor's degree in any faculty of one of the Pakistan Universities. It is however, provided that no candidate who has obtained a third Division in the Bachelor's Degree will be eligible for the examination except in cases where be bad obtained a higher Division it Master's or Law Degree. But in this context Note (ii) further provides that: - "Candidates who bare appeared at an examination the passing of which would render them eligible to appear at the competitive examination but have not been informed of the result may apply for admission to the examination. Their applications will be accepted provisionally and they will be required to furnish the proof of having passed the examination as soon as possible and in any caw not later than the date on which the candidates are summoned for vice voce test"
9. In the instant case there is no dispute about the essential facts. It is common ground that the appellant had already appeared in the LL B. Final examination before he offered himself as a candidate for the Central Superior Service Competitive Examination for which the last date for the receipt of application by the Commission was fixed a the 14th of October 1975, therefore, in as much as the result of his LL. B. Examination was not declared before he applied in time for the competitive examination his application was accepted provisionally by the Commission in accordance with the Note (ii) of condition No. 5 reproduced above. As it happened he cleared five out-of the seven papers in the LL. B. Examination and was placed in compartment in the remaining two papers.
10. In this connection the amended Regulation No. 4 (i) of the University relating to the LL. B Examination lays down that candidate who appears in the examination in all the subjects and passes in four or more papers, obtaining an aggregate 45% of the mark, in those papers may be exempted from reappearing therein at the subsequent examinations. He shall, however, be required to appear and pass all the remaining papers (obtaining 40% in individual papers and 45% in the aggregate) in any two of the three succeeding examinations. A candidate is entitled to exemption in consequence of hits having passed the examination in four or more papers, obtaining on an aggregate 45 % of the marks in those papers and this concession earned by him forms part of and goes with that examination which however, remained incomplete in respect of the other paper in which he a required to reappear afterwards This would be merely to supplement the result of the examination already taken by him.
11. In this case the appellant re-appeared in the two papers only is the examination held in March 1976 and he did not have to appear again in all the seven papers. His result was eventually declared by combining the marks already obtained by hint is five papers in 'which he had previously passed and the two papers in which he had re-appeared subsequently. This subsequent examination in the two papers in which be re-appeared was in the nature of supplementary examination. So far as he was concerned he re-appeared in the two papers only to as to complete the result of the examination held in August 1975. According to Chambers Twentieth Dictionary "supplement" means that which supplies a deficiency or that which completes or brings closer to completion. In our opinion, in the circumstances explained above the subsequent examination undertaken by the appellant in March 1976 in the two papers only was not a self-contained examination. In so far as he was concerned he took this examination in continuation and as a part of final LL. B Examination let which he had appeared in August 1975, sin order to complete its result by virtue of the facility granted to him under the Regulation of the University. The result of his LL.B. Examination was duly communicated to the Federal Public Service Commission on the 9th of lane 1976 before his viva voce test was actually held on the 24th of June 1976. He was also allowed to undergo his psychological test before his candidature was illegally cancelled.
12. We, therefore, find that the Commission watt not justified in cancelling the candidature of the appellant for that competitive examination and the memorandum dated 26th of June 1976 issued in that connection was without lawful authority and has no legal effect. We are, therefore, unable to subscribe to the views formed by the High Court on the facts of this cam. This important aspect of the case seems to have escaped their attention.
13. Before us the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this petition is not properly constituted in the absence or a successful candidate selected by the Commission against whom this judgment may have any repercussion and ultimately have as adverse effect upon him. But this appears to us to be a purely hypothetical consideration and this order merely binds the parties before us.
14. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is bound to succeed. We, therefore, accept this appeal and declare that the impugned order of cancelling of the candidature of the appellant was passed without lawful authority and has no legal effect. There shall be no order as to cost in the circumstances of the case.