1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

We have heard Mr. Abdus Samad Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the same contention as was consistently and persistently urged by the petitioner in the correspondence between him and respondent No. 1 and in essence his case has been and is that Notification of 1985 will not be operative retrospectively and as such his appearances earlier in competitive examinations for the posts mentioned therein would not stand in his way to avail of as many chances as stipulated by the said notification. A reference to the Notification of 1985 would reveal that not only it materially modified the Notification of 1983 in terms of raising the number of chances of appearing in competitive examinations from 3 to 4 but also categorized the combined and individual examinations. The number of chances to be availed of were however subject to the condition that a maximum of three chances only shall be allowed in any of the combined or individual examinations which are as follows: - (a) Combined Examination for recruitment to the posts of Extra Assistant Commissioners, Section Officers and Excise and Taxation Officers and such other posts which the Government may include in this category, (b) Examination for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge; (c) Examination for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests. The contention of the respondent however was the same as manifested from their show-cause notice and subsequent correspondence on the subject with the petitioner in that under the Notification of 1985 he is left with no chance to appear in the competitive examination. The learned counsel however laid more stress on the alleged concealment on the part of the petitioner of the chances earlier availed of by the petitioner than the one he had applied for and in this application of his he violated the warning as contained in para. 12(c) of the instructions on the very application form, while furnishing requisite information in this regard in column 20 thereof. In the light of this factual aspect, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No. 1 was justified in their impugned action of declaring the petitioner ineligible not only for the competitive examination applied for but also for any such future examination. We have given our serious consideration to the factual and legal aspects of the case and find that from a plain reading of Notification dated 8th November, 1983 it transpires that the chances of appearing in such competitive examination earlier to its publication were two in all which, as per the said notification, were raised to three. The petitioner has admittedly appeared in Extra Assistant Commissioners' examination in 1983 (besides in 1979) and for Civil Judges' examination in 1983 as also in 1984. It will thus be seen that the petitioner had already exhausted his chances to appear in such examinations before the issuance of Notification dated 12th January, 1985. Consequently the petitioner cannot claim any benefit under the latter Notification of 1985. In fact, both the notifications are rather complimentary than negatory to each other and a combined effect of both the notifications, therefore, would be that each and every chance availed of by a candidate, even earlier than the Notification of 1983 shall be computed towards resolving the issue of his eligibility under the Notification of 1985, as it stands today, to participate in the competitive examination. Accordingly, following this principle, we find that the case of the petitioner, without any ambiguity, falls within the ambit of the two notifications referred to above issued under section 26 of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act, 1973 and we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was rightly debarred as such by respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order. Otherwise too, we are constrained to observe, that the conduct of the petitioner was not above-board in submitting his latest application. Perusal of the application form of the petitioner and the conditions printed thereon, which he was supposed, nay rather, bound to follow while filling it, discloses than he did not leave his hands much cleaner by suppressing and concealing the requisite information relating to availing of earlier chances and accordingly grossly violated instruction No. 12(c) which administers, inter alia, warning to a candidate that: "Withholding of any material information will disqualify you for the post applied for." In this context of the matter the impugned action of respondent No. 1 cannot be assailed on any ground. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that this writ petition, having no merits is dismissed in limine. C.M. No. 369 of 1988 having become infructuous is also dismissed accordingly. AA./666/P Petition dismissed.