1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Preamble

Employee of statutory body not a Government servant-- Specific column of application form submitted by petitioner to respondent department was intended to supply information whether he had been dismissed or removed from Government service

Petitioner being employee of statutory body had written in such specific column as not applicable-- -Such information would come within purview of misrepresentation or false statement only, if petitioner had been in service of Provincial or Federal Government-- Petitioner had thus, made no misrepresentation/concealment of fact of his services having been terminated at relevant time i.e. at the time of filing of his application form

Petitioner even otherwise was reinstated with retrospective effect; his period of absence was treated to be extraordinary leave without pay and allowances

Effect of reinstatement with retrospective effect would be as if petitioner was never terminated from service of statutory body

Respondent department initially recommending petitioner's appointment to post advertised by it and latter recalling such recommendation on ground of withholding information relating to his termination of service at relevant time

Effect. Reading of the application alongwith admitted facts of the case, would show that the petitioner did not make any misrepresentation in relevant column. The mere fact that his services wire initially terminated by the respondent Council on erroneous assumption of fact, but later he was reinstated in service with retrospective effect would not lead to the conclusion that incorrect information supplied by him against specific column would tantamount to misrepresentation/concealment of material facts. In any event, the order of termination was since vacated with retrospective effect by the competent Authority before the recommendation was made by the Commission, the misrepresentation had not materially affected the merits of the case and was of in substantial character having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner was admittedly found to be most suitable person on merits and, therefore, the Commission erred in withdrawing the recommendation purely on a technical ground. Rashid Ahmad v. The State PLO 1972 SC 271; Noor Muhammad v.(Irshad Hasan Khan, J) Collector, Jhelum PLD 1960 Lah. 841; Muhammad Tariq Ch. v. Masroor Ahmad PLD 1991 Lah. 200; Ghulam Murtaza v. Chairman, Selection Board/Principal, K.E. Medical College, Lahore 1981 CLC 274 and Muhammad Ashraf Qadri v. Principal, King Edward Medical College PLD 1982 SC 131 ref.

Art. 199

Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of

Petitioner's entitlement to be appointed to specific post, whereto, he had been recommended by respondent department on basis of merit

Respondent giving two reasons for withdrawing recommendation without distinguishing between them

One of the reasons relating to entry of specific column in application form was found to been inapplicable, therefore, it could not be said as to what extent, reason given with respect to other column operated on mind of respondent-- Respondent might not have withdrawn recommendation at all only on basis of answer to other question which stood cured by subsequent events

Such circumstance would render impugned order as without lawful authority-- Order passed by respondent department whereby it had recalled its initial recommendation for- appointment of petitioner to specific post was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Competent Authority was, therefore, directed to consider earlier recommendation made in favour of petitioner and further process his case in accordance with law. Rana Muhammad Arshad,