With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties both the Writ Petitions Nos, 3287/2003 and 3639/2003 are admitted for regular hearing and are being disposed of as pacca cases through this single judgment as similar questions of law and facts are involved and mainly appointment of Muhammad Umar Javed respondent has been challenged.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the official-respondents through an advertisement in the Daily Newspaper had invited applications for the appointments of Patwaries, so as to reach the office of Deputy District Officer (Revenue)/Director Land Record, Board of Revenue Punjab, Faridkot House, Lahore, from 7th to 21st of August, 2002 and all the candidates were required to appear for interview from 26th to 29th August, 2002 in the office of Deputy District Officer (Revenue). The age limit was 18 to 30 years while basic qualification for the applicant was Matric with Patwar Course.
The criteria for the grant of marks was also notified by the Board of Revenue vide its letter dated 6.8.2002 which is reproduced as under:--
1. Qualification (a)Matric.
(i) Ist Division 35 Marks (ii)2nd Division 25 (iii)3rd Division 20 "
(b)Patwar Examination
(i) 70% and above 30 Marks (ii)60% and above 20"
(iii)Below 60% 15"
(c)Higher Qualification
(i) B.A. Ist Division 15 Marks 2nd Division 7" 3rd Division 5"
(ii)F.A. Ist Division 8 Marks 2nd Division 5 " 3rd Division 3 ' Hafiz-e-Quran 2 Marks Interview 10 "
The petitioners being qualified alongwith others had applied for the same and also attached their testimonials. The candidates were interviewed and merit list was prepared. The present writ petitions pertain to the appointments of Patwaries in District Khanewal. Deputy District Officer (Revenue) prepared the merit list Annex: 'C' According to which respondent No, 4 whose appointment has been challenged obtained 65 marks, detailed below:-- 1.Matric Ist Division 35 2.F.A. Ist Division 8 3.Patwar Course below 60%15 4.Interview 7 Total: 65
4. On the other hand the petitioner Muhammad Mazhar Alam in W.P. No, 3287/2003 secured 63 marks, in the following terms:--
1. Matric 2nd Division 25
2. F.A. 2nd Division 5
3. B.A.2 Division 7
4. Patwar Course 60% and. above.20
5. Interview 6 Total 63
5. While Ghulam Shabbir Petitioner in W.P. No, 3639/2003 secured 62 marks, in the following terms:- -
1. Matric 2nd Division 25
2. F.A. 2nd Division 3
3. B.A. 2nd Division 7
4. Patwar Course 60% and above.20
5. Interview 7 Total:52nd
5. Both the petitioners have challenged the appointment of Muhammad Umar Javaid respondent as according to the Matric Certificate he appeared against Roll No, 40872 and secured 321 marks in the Annual Examination held in the year 1992 but the D.D.O. (R) at the time of nierit list counted 575 marks (Ist. Division) whereas he could only be given 20 marks on the basis of 3rd Division but he has been granted 35 marks considering Ist. Division in Matric. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that Respondent No, 4 did not pass F.A. examination but his certificate was bogus and he wrongly mentioned that he obtained 671/1100 marks against Roll No, 14288. It is further contended that the appointment of Respondent No, 4 having been procured on the basis of forged document is liable to be terminated.
6. Record was summoned from the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Multan. The representative of the said Board is present and states that according to the record of the Board, Respondent No, 4 Muhammad Umar Javaid obtained 382 marks and was a third divisioner. He did not secure 575 marks as were wrongly counted by the respondent-DDO (R). Similarly .according to the Result Gazette for Secondary School Annual Examination, 1995 against Roll No, 14288 Muhammad Umar Javaid respondent did not appear and against the said Roll Number one Javaid Iqbal son of Muhammad Iqbal appeared, who also failed. It is further stated from the record that in fact he appeared in the Annual Examination 1992 against Roll No, 40874 and Secured 321 marks but failed in Islamiat. It has also been clarified by the representative of the Board that the verification certificate placed with the comments by the DDO(R) in fact was not issued by the Assistant Controller of Examination, Multan and the signatures of the Controller of Examination were forged one, whereas the proforma is also. different which is being used by the Board for the purpose and the particulars filled therein are also false.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the fraud committed by Respondent No, 4 duly confirmed from the record seeks termination of his appointment made vide letter dated. 14.9.2002 and prays for the appointment of Muhammad Mazhar Alam petitioner in his place.
8. Mr. Tahir Mahmood, learned counsel for Respondent No, 4 has not turned up inspite of that Wakalatnama was filed on his behalf today and he was also waited for. Instead his junior has placed on record copy of some application allegedly submitted by Respondent No, 4 to the Controller of Examinations, University of Karachi, for the verification of his B.A. result, which according to him is also forged one and as such it is claimed that the petitioner having not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court, whose writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
9. Learned counsel for Ghulam Shabbir Aasi petitioner in Writ Petition No, 3639/2003 contends that the academic certificates of Muhammad Umar Javaid Respondent No, 4 and Ghulam Mujtaba Respondent 5, who was at Serial No, 8 in the merit list were forged documents and they were not qualified, wherefore, petitioner is entitled to be appointed being next in the merit list.
9-A. Learned AAG has also been heard.
10.I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. It has been proved on the record that Respondent No, 4 appeared against Roll No, 40874 in the Matriculation Examination and was a 3rd Divisioner but 575 marks were counted in the merit list on the basis of forged documents produced in this connection. Even the Verification Certificate issued in this respect has been denied from the record ,of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Multan. It has also been proved on the record that Respondent No, 4 did not appear against Roll No, 14288 Annual Examination 1995 in F.A. and in fact one Javaid Iqbal son of Muhammad Iqbal had appeared against said Roll Number, who too failed.
It has also been clarified by the representative of the Board that the certificate of verification (R-1) produced alongwith the report and comments by Respondent No, 2 is also forged document, being not issued from the Board whereas the proforma prescribed by the Board, which is usually issued for the purpose is of different nature. In such circumstances I have no hesitation in holding that Respondent No, 4 procured his appointment on the basis of forged academic certificate, which is liable to be terminated. Hence the competent authority is directed to terminate the services of Respondent No, 4 forthwith and proceed against him in accordance with law. So far as objection of Respondent No, 4 that B.A. Certificate of the petitioner Muhammad Mazhar Alam is also forged one and he having not come to the Court with clean hands his writ petition is riot maintainable is concerned, still no verification report has been placed on record in this connection. Therefore, this Court cannot comment upon the same. As far as the other prayer of the petitioners for their appointment against the said post is concerned, no direction can be given in this regard in the given circumstances as their testimonials have yet to be verified. However, the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) is directed to get verified the academic certificates of the remaining candidates who were not selected, but are you merit list and appoint qualified person strictly in accordance with law. This process shall be completed within the shortest possible period. Both the writ petitions are accepted in the above terms with no orders as to costs.
11.Vide order dated 15.1Q.2003 security of Rs, 10,000/- was deposited by the petitioner in WP No, 3287/2003. As the allegations levelled in this writ petition against Respondent No, 4 that he procured his appointment oh forged academic certificates has been found correct from the record of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Multan the said amount shall be refunded to Muhammad Mazhar Alam petitioner.