2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUDASSIR KHALID ABBASI, J.

Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the legality of letter dated 16.12.2016 whereby decision of full commission regarding cancellation of answer sheet has been conveyed to the petitioner seeking direction to respondent No.1 to reconsider the answer sheet under Roll No.42175 for the post of Land Record Officer.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement published for the recruitment of 161-posts of Land Record Officers (BS-16) in Board of Revenue, Punjab, petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the said post. Subsequently, on 06.11.2016, he appeared in written test but his name did not appear in the list of successful candidates, issued by Punjab Public Service Commission nor exists in the list of candidates who met the case of DMC. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an application before respondent No.1 for publication of result of petitioner which has been replied through the impugned letter bearing No.PPSC-SA/609/2016 dated 16.12.2016, issued by Director Examination, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore whereby the petitioner was informed as follows:-- "You appeared for the subject cited written test held on 06.11.2016 and failed to fill in the Paper Code on your answer sheet which is a violation of Instructions, printed on Question Paper at Serial No.2. Therefore, your answer sheet for the said post has been cancelled in the light of decision of Full Commission and Instructions printed on Question Paper at Sr. No.2."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that instructions printed on the question paper recently introduced by respondent No.1, were neither disseminated by the office of respondent' No.1 for the information of the candidates nor did the invigilating staff informed the candidates about it. Further submits that petitioner has solved his answer sheet intelligently and was optimistic that he will succeed in the written examination. Further argued that state functionaries are expected to act fairly and justly.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that petitioner had failed to fill in the paper code on his answer sheet, therefore, his answer sheet was not processed and same was cancelled in the light of decision of full Commission meeting held on 19.09.2016. Para-7 of minutes of said commission meeting, relevant to the petitioner, is reproduced herein below:- "

7. Director Examinations informed the House that about 200 candidates had not mentioned/filled their Paper Code on the Answer Sheets. Therefore, the examination staff had to locate the Question Paper of concerned candidate to feed the Paper Code before the preparation of result of written test which caused unnecessary delay. After detailed and lengthy discussion it was detailed that the candidates who fail to mention Paper Code at the specified place on the Answer Sheet be cancelled and candidature rejected accordingly." Further argued that petitioner has violated the instructions printed on the question paper at Sr. No.2, which are reproduced as under:- "Write paper code on your answer sheet carefully. If you fail to do so, your answer sheet will be cancelled.". Therefore, petition having no merits is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate General and also gone through the record, with their able assistance.

6. I do not feel much impressed with the justification advanced by respondent No.1 in his reply stating therein that the petitioner failed to fill in the paper code on his answer sheet and therefore, same could not be processed and was cancelled in light of a decision made by the Commission and instructions printed on question paper, at Sr. No.2 whereby a candidate was required to write paper code on his answer sheet failing which answer sheet will be cancelled.

7. Perusal of the record reveals that, infact there are two columns regarding the paper code. Paper code of the petitioner was 'A', this has been filled in first column whereas second column was required to be marked through bubble fill which was omitted by the petitioner.

8. Admittedly, the aforementioned omission will neither cause any difference regarding the identity of the petitioner nor materially effects the merits of examination. Whereas on the other hand, it may cause a serious prejudice to the petitioner, on account of his professional career. Respondent No.1/Punjab Public Service Commission could overcome such type of technical omission instead of knock out the petitioner, purely on hyper technical ground. Reliance is placed on "Sidra Idrees v. Punjab Public Service Commission through Chairman" (2016 PLC (C.S.) 1142). In another pronouncement of this Hon'ble Court cited "Sheeraz Aziz Cheema v. Punjab Public Service Commission through Secretary and 2 others" (PLD 2004 Lahore 545), while dealing with a case of similar nature, it was observed that the policies of Punjab Public Service Commission had to be construed in a beneficial manner and not to be applied, in order to deprive a person from his due right. It has been further observed in the said judgment that too much adherence to technicalities, which impede the cause of justice,' cannot be countenanced by the Court. Moreover, in PLD 1963 SC 382 case titled "Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali and others" it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-- "proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy. The English system of administration of justice on which our own is based may be to certain extent technical but we are not to take from that system its defects. Any system, which by giving effect to the form and not to the substance defeats substantive rights, is defective to that extent. The ideal must always be a system that gives to every person what is his."

9. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.12.2016 is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to proceed further and announce the result of the petitioner. No order as to cost. ZC/M-111/L Petition allowed.