1995 PLP 842 (CLC)

The brief facts are that in response to the public notice appearing in the Press (Annexure `A') the petitioners applied for admission to the Health Technicians Training Courses for the year 1991‑

92. Through the orders dated 30‑6‑1991, 8‑6‑1991 and 18‑6‑1991 the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 respectively were given sanction by the Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab to the grant of additional Non‑stipendary admission in Health Technician Training Course at Health Technician Training School, Gujrat for the Session 1991‑

92. Accordingly, they were admitted to the Health Technician Training Class at Aziz Bhatti Shaheed Hospital, Gujrat. On 19‑1‑1992, the Medical Superintendent, Aziz Bhatti Shaheed Hospital, Gujrat wrote a letter to the Director Health Services, Gujranwala Division Gujranwala (Annexure `E') in respect of respondent No .l stating that he fulfilled the conditions of criteria of Health Technician Training Course and had been allowed to attend the Class in, the Hospital, therefore, proper orders from the Director Health Services, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala were sought. It is contended that similar letter was also sent by the Medical Superintendent, Aziz Bhatti Shaheed Hospital, Gujrat to the Director Health Services, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala in respect of the two other writ petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that in compliance with the letter dated 11 5‑1992 the petitioners appeared before the Deputy Secretary Admn.III of the Health Department, Government of the Punjab and showed him the documents relating to their educational qualifications etc. which were checked by him. He also contended that after completing the training course the petitioners appeared in the examination held in the month of July, 1993 in the Aziz Bhatti Shaheed Hospital but their result was withheld and is not being announced.

2. The Secretary, Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore respondent No.2 submitted report and parawise comments wherein he has taken the plea that the petitioners were not qualified to be admitted in the Health Technician Training Course because they had not obtained 50% marks in each of the Science subjects in their Matriculation Examination that the matter was also referred to the governing body of the Punjab Medical Faculty which in its meeting dated 24‑7‑1994 rejected the proposal of the Punjab Medical Faculty to relax the qualification/criteria for admission in Health Technicians Training Course.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners were allowed to join the Health Technicians Training Course who after completing the training course appeared in the prescribed final examination along with other candidates. However, the result of the petitioners was not announced. When they contacted the relevant authority they were informed of their aforesaid disqualification.

4. The petitioners were not refused admission in the‑Health Technicians Training Course nor was their admission made on conditional basis. On the contrary, the petitioners were allowed to complete the training course of 1‑1/2 years and also to appear in the final examination after completing the other formalities. The principle of "locus poenitentiae" shall, therefore, apply to the present case and the respondents cannot be allowed to retrace their steps after such a long time and to undo what they have done long time before in the year; 1991. The permission to join the Health Technicians Training Course in the year 1991 cannot be withdrawn or cancelled after such a long time. The decision to admit the petitioners was implemented and it created certain rights in favour of the petitioners who appeared in the final examination after completing the training course of 1‑1/2 years. Reference in this behalf is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi" (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 407), the relevant observations therein are as follows:‑ "There can hardly be any dispute with the rule as laid down in these cases that apart from the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, locus poenitentiae, i.e., the power of receding till a decisive step is taken, is available to the Government or the relevant authorities. In fact, the existence of such a power is necessary in the case of all authorities empowered to pass order to retrace the wrong steps taken by them. The authority that has the power to make an order has also the power to undo it. But this is subject to the exception that where the order has taken legal effect, and in pursuance thereof certain rights have been created in favour of any individual, such an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of those rights.". In another case, namely, "Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh v. Sher Muhammad Makhdoom" (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 973) in somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "It is quite apparent that restrictions imposed in para. 4 of the Revenue Department's Notification mentioned above, pertain to the appointment as Mukhtiarkar and in the cases under consideration will have no bearing for the reasons that respondents were granted exemptions in accordance with circulars, requirements of which were duly fulfilled by them and not only that but exemptions were implemented and they received necessary training, as such valuable rights had accrued to them which could not be interfered with. In this context, reference can be made to section 20 of General Clauses Act and guidelines laid down in the case of Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 407), in which it is held that principle of locus poenitentiae is available to the Government or relevant authorities and further authority which is competent to make order has power to undo it, but such order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded once it has taken legal effect and created certain rights in favour of any individual." It is too late in the day for the respondents to exercise power of receding and withdraw the permission or to cancel the petitioners' admission to the said Training Course. After completion of the same and after allowing the petitioners to appear in the final examination, how can their result be withheld on such a ground. The petitioners have spent about three years of their precious life. How can they by compensated and by whom? The orders have taken legal effect and in pursuance thereof certain rights have been created in favour of the petitioners, which cannot be unilaterally taken away by the respondents. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is accepted and respondents are directed to announce the result of the petitioners immediately in accordance with law. AA./M‑1940 Petition accepted.