1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.‑‑The petitioner Altaf Ahmed Bijarani has filed this petition seeking a declaration that Sind Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) have illegally and unlawfully withheld his result in the Combined Competitive Examination, 1986 held by them. He further seeks that direction be issued to the Government of Sind to appoint him on the basis of the result of the aforementioned examination.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the Commission somewhere in June, 1986, published an advertisement in newspapers inviting applications from the candidates for appointment to certain posts in N.P.S.‑17 through Combined Competitive Examination, 1986. The petitioner filed his application supported by certain documents. The petitioner then received a letter dated 27‑6‑1987 from the Commissioner permitting him to appear in the written test commencing on 20‑7‑1987. The petitioner went through the written test and was declared as successful candidate in the list announced by the Commission. During the course of the interview by the Commission held on 3‑4‑1988 it transpired that the petitioner instead of fling original copy of his degree from Hofstra University, New York, had produced copies of testimonials dated 21‑3‑1985, 14‑5‑1985 and 15‑5‑1985 and a copy of mark‑sheets (Total Grade Report). The petitioner was therefore, directed to appear again on 6‑4‑1988 requiring him to bring all original documents. In the meanwhile a letter was also addressed to the University Grants Commission to certify whether a degree granted by Hofstra University, New York (USA) was equivalent to a degree conferred by our Universities and further that it was duly recognised as such in Pakistan. The University Grants Commission issued a certificate dated 12‑4‑1988 certifying "that University Grants Commission accept the degree of B.Sc from Hofstra University (USA) as equivalent to B.Sc. of Pakistan:" The petitioner during the course of the personal hearing granted by the Commission was not able to satisfy the Commission about his qualifications or having obtained a degree from the said University and it was on that account that his result was withheld. In support of the petition Mr.Fazle Ghani Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended as under:‑ (i) The application of the petitioner as supported by his documents was not only accepted for the purpose of written test but he was also granted interview for viva voce examination. Under these circumstances according to him, the petitioner should be deemed to have been a duly eligible candidate for the selection. (ii) That on the basis of the same documents the Federal Public Service Commission treated him to be a holder of B.Sc. degree from Hofstra University and found him to be eligible for participating in the written and viva‑voce tests conducted by them. (iii) That the petitioner subsequently obtained B.A. degree from Sind University, which may be treated as due compliance of objections raised by the Commission. Mr. Fazle Ghani Khan to our queries repeatedly asserted that the petitioner was in possession of the only documents which he had filed with his application which should be accepted as satisfactory evidence of his having obtained a degree from that University as the petitioner at the time of filing of his application had not received the degree .from that University. Ultimately, after a number of questions Mr. Fazle Ghani Khan stated that the petitioner had not received the degree till date and in fact he could not have received it as he had completed only two years out of course of four years required for obtaining a degree from Hofstra University, New York. He then sought permission of this Court to withdraw the petition. Since this fact was suppressed throughout and the petition was heard at length we propose to decide the petition on merits and we ordered the petition to be dismissed by our order dated 4‑10‑1988 for reasons to be recorded later. This judgment is being written to assign the reasons for dismissal of the petition. It may be pointed out that the petitioner had filed few documents in support of his petition. He had not filed any document with this petition which could be treated as evidence of the fact that he had actually obtained a degree from Hofstra University, New York. The Commission in its parawise comments had filed copies of the documents supplied to them by the petitioner on their enquiries and also their own documents. It appears that the petitioner on inquiry by the Commission had filed following four documents: (i) A certificate from Associate Registrar Hofstra University dated 21‑3‑1985. (ii) A certificate dated 14th May, 1985 issued by Assistant Deen of Students, International, Students Advisor, Hofstra University, New York. (iii) A certificate dated 15th May, 1985 from Student Activities Co‑ordinator, Hofstra University; and (iv) A copy of total Grade Report. Certificates dated 14th and 15th May, 1985 mentioned hereinabove at (ii) and (iii) are good character certificates issued by the concerned authorities and have nothing to do with his academic qualifications or having obtained a degree from that University. The certificate dated 21‑3‑1985 issued by the Associate Registrar is important and is reproduced below: "This is to confirm that Altaf A. Bijarani, 999‑98‑9273, is a full time student at Hofstra University matriculated in the area of Electrical Engineering leading to a Bachelor of Science degree, Mr.Bijarani has been in continuous attendance since the Full 1983 semester (September., 1983) through the present Spring 1985 semester. Furthermore; Mr.Bijarani has successfully completed 54 semester hours of his programme covering the First two years at Hofstra University." This certificate makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner had merely matriculated in the area of electrical engineering leading to Bachelor of Science degree. This certificate confirms the doubts of the Commission that the petitioner had in fact not obtained a degree of Bachelor of Science, from that University as claimed by him throughout. The petitioner has all along been relying on the Total Grade Report as evidence of his graduation. The Total Grade Report merely contains the grades secured by the petitioner in the semesters mentioned in the certificate of 21st March, 1985 and referred to hereinabove. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Federal Public Service Commission had accepted him as an eligible candidate for their examination on the bass of the same documents should be taken as binding on Commission to accept him as the degree‑holder is also not tenable. The petitioner was admitted to the examination provisionally. It would be pertinent to reproduce the opening words of the admission certificate issued b the Commission and filed by the petitioner: "You are hereby admitted to the abovenoted examination provisionally. In case you .are found ineligible later on for any reasons) the candidature shall be liable for cancellation and the application shall stand rejected." The petitioner was thus admitted provisionally subject to comply with the conditions which make a candidate eligible to appear in the examination. The petitioner was asked to produce the degree and equivalence certificate but he produced a letter of University Grants Commission which did not improve his case. Therefore, as the petitioner was allowed provisionally to appear in written and viva voce examinations it does not lead to the conclusion that he was accepted as eligible candidate or that the ineligibility had been condoned or waived. The petitioner was given full opportunity to produce the B.Sc. degree or proof of having equivalent recognised degree but he failed to substantiate his claim of being a graduate which was the minimum qualification for eligibility to appear in the competitive examination. Where any person is allowed to do any act provisionally or subject to certain conditions then unless he has fulfilled those conditions, the concession shown to him does not amount to waiver of condition. The word provisionally connotes a meaning that the arrangement is likely to be changed if the conditions or requirements are not satisfied. Anything provisional is not final and is subject to change. Additionally, he has relied upon B.A. degree obtained in 1987 from the Sind University. The degree obtained by him from Sind University is after the closing date of the applications invited by the Commission and, therefore, this degree by itself cannot make him eligible for participating in the examinations of 1986. In view of above it is evident that at the time of filing of application before the Commission for the Combined Competitive Examination, 1986, the petitioner was not a graduate holding B.Sc. degree from Hofstra University New York, therefore, was not eligible to take that examination and seek appointment to a post advertised by it. The petitioner has indeed suppressed the true facts about his American qualification throughout and has also approached this Court with unclean hands. The petition, therefore, merits no consideration and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./A‑457/K Petition dismissed.