2025 PLP 1307 (MLD)
Muhammad Javaid Iqbal — Petitioner Versus Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 PLP 1307 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Muhammad Javaid Iqbal — Petitioner Versus Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Educational institution, (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (d) Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908 ) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 1307 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Educational institution, (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (d) Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908 ), (b) Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 1307 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 1307 (MLD) (Muhammad Javaid Iqbal — Petitioner Versus Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Examinations---Result, quashing of --- Evidence against the student / candidate, deficiency of---Student/candidate (plaintiff) who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenging quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )---Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student---Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, referred the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and same would be carried out in accordance with law---Held: Evidence adduced by the parties revealed that two persons, including Retired Assistant Controller, appearing as witness for respondent-Board during cross-examination had deposed to the effect that petitioner / plaintiff had appeared in the examination fulfilling all requirements without any complaint and was issued certificate rightly---Thus, said particular piece of evidence clearly reflected that respondent-Board had no case against the petitioner/ plaintiff on merits---On the other hand , all the witnesses produced by the petitioner / plaintiff stood the test of cross-examination and remained unscathed; no contradictions were found in their testimony , rather they remained firm with regard to the stance of the petitioner / plaintiff --- There was not a single suggestion put to the petitioner / plaintiff during the cross-examination that he did not appear in the examination or that he procured the result card by employing unfair means --- On the other hand , evidence led by the respondents -Board was full of material discrepancies---Defence witnesses, during their cross-examination , admitted the stance of the petitioner / plaintiff that he(plaintiff) appeared in the examination and passed it and certificate was issued to him and they (witnesses) did not say that petitioner/plaintiff procured certificate by using unlawful means---Courts below while passing impugned judgments and decrees ignored said piece(s) of evidence and committed non-reading and mis-reading of evidence and in such cases interference was permitted in revisonal jurisdiction of High Court---Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice ---High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
- Anwaar-ul-Haq for Petitioner.
- Ahmad Sardar Khan along with Muhammad Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court representatives of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- 3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Board has repelled the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and avers that petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity but he did not elect to appear before the competent forum. Although the orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee and Appellate Committee were non speaking but now the proceedings have been remanded back to the lawful forum, which will be decided in accordance with law. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand.
- 6. Apart from the above, D.W-2 Sultan Sikandar appearing as witness for respondent-Board during cross-examination has deposed as under:-
Headnotes / Summary
Examinations
Result, quashing of
Chairman
Powers--Student/candidate (Plaintiff) who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenged quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )
Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff/ student
Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, referred the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee ) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and was to be carried out in accordance with law
It was not disputed that petitioner's (student's) result was notified in 1997 , however, the provisions of R.18 of Chapter V of Faisalabad BISE's Calendar clearly stipulated that power to quash vested in the Chairman, but the respondent-Board had placed on the record no such order ( i.e. order to said effect having been passed by the Chairman)
Even the document exhibited by respondent, (defendant /Board), through which petitioner / plaintiff was eventually intimated about dismissal of his appeal had not been issued by the Chairman
When a thing is to be done in a manner provided under law, the same should be done in that manner and not otherwise
Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice
High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for
Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Examinations
Result, quashing of
Evidence against the student / candidate, deficiency of
Student/candidate (plaintiff) who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenging quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )
Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student
Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, referred the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and same would be carried out in accordance with law
Held: Evidence adduced by the parties revealed that two persons, including Retired Assistant Controller, appearing as witness for respondent-Board during cross-examination had deposed to the effect that petitioner / plaintiff had appeared in the examination fulfilling all requirements without any complaint and was issued certificate rightly
Thus, said particular piece of evidence clearly reflected that respondent-Board had no case against the petitioner/ plaintiff on merits
On the other hand , all the witnesses produced by the petitioner / plaintiff stood the test of cross-examination and remained unscathed; no contradictions were found in their testimony , rather they remained firm with regard to the stance of the petitioner / plaintiff
There was not a single suggestion put to the petitioner / plaintiff during the cross-examination that he did not appear in the examination or that he procured the result card by employing unfair means
On the other hand , evidence led by the respondents -Board was full of material discrepancies
Defence witnesses, during their cross-examination , admitted the stance of the petitioner / plaintiff that he(plaintiff) appeared in the examination and passed it and certificate was issued to him and they (witnesses) did not say that petitioner/plaintiff procured certificate by using unlawful means
Courts below while passing impugned judgments and decrees ignored said piece(s) of evidence and committed non-reading and mis-reading of evidence and in such cases interference was permitted in revisonal jurisdiction of High Court
Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice
High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for
Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
O. XLI
Quashing of result by Education Board
Evidence of parties , availability of
Remanding of the case by Appellate Court
Student/candidate who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenged quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )
Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student
Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, remanded the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and was to be out carried in accordance with law
Sufficient material was available on record to decide the matter on merits and the parties had already led evidence and the material facts had clearly emerged
In such like cases remand was not an option rather Court should have decided the case on merits
Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice
High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for
Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
O. XLI
Quashing of result by Education Board
Evidence of parties , availability of
Remanding of the case by Appellate Court
Student/candidate who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenging quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )
Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student
Appellate / District Court set-aside Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, remanded the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and should be carried out in accordance with law
Remand cannot be ordered to improve the case of one party
Parties cannot be relegated to square one
When the complete evidence of the parties was available the Appellate Court should have decided the matter
Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice
High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for
Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J.
Brief facts of the case are that present petitioner successfully passed his matriculation examination with Roll No.45965 in the year 1997 and he was issued certificate No.45965-SA-L97 by respondent-BISE Faisalabad. On a telephonic information respondent-BISE Faisalabad initiated an inquiry against the petitioner on the allegation that he has procured matriculation certificate by employing illegal means as someone else appeared in his stead. This culminated in quashing of the result of the petitioner/plaintiff and an FIR to that effect was also registered. However, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee against the order of quashment, which was also dismissed. The petitioner assailed quashing of his certificate and decision of the Appellate Committee through filing a suit for declaration against the respondents before the learned Trial Court, which was resisted by them while submitting contesting written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 07.06.2010:- I. Whether letter No.1327-SD dated 06.12.2008, 307 FSR-ii dated 11.2000,9-ES R-ii dated 20.2.2001, ACER 728 dated 11.09.2000 are against the law and facts, without notice, based mala fide, inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff, liable to be declared null and void? OPP. II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declare his certified issued vide registration No.45965-SA-L97, serial No.033547 as genuine and to use it? OPP. III. Whether this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit in hand under sections 29 and 31 of Board Act? OPD. IV. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD. V. Whether the plaintiff's matriculation certificate has been declared nullified? OPD. VI. Relief. Petitioner in order to prove his stance himself appeared as P.W-1 and produced Shahzad son of Muhammad Aslam as P.W.2, Muhammad Iqbal son of Baqar as P.W-3 and tendered roll number slip Exh.P-1, identification sheet Exh.P-2, verification of result card Exh.P-3, transfer order Exh.P-4, transfer order Exh.P-5, letter of controller examination Exh.P-6, report Exh.P-7, report under section 173, Cr.P.C., Exh.P-8, report under section 173, Cr.P.C., Exh.P-9, restoration of secondary school certificate Exh.P-10, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Exh.P-11, FIR No.147 Exh.P-12, FIR under sections 302/324, P.P.C, Exh.P-13, FIR No.24/2002 Exh.P-14, attested copy of Nakah Nama Exh.P-15, attested copy of petition for cancellation of bail Exh.P-16, transfer letter Exh.P-17, office order Exh.P-18, transfer order Exh.P-19, office order Exh.P-20, transfer order Exh.P-21, pedigree table Exh.P-22, notification dated 16.02.1999 Mark-A, attested copy of suit titled umer Draz v. Muhammad Aslam Exh.P-23, attested copy of written statement Exh.P-24, attested copy of application Exh.P-25, attested copy Exh.P-26, attested copy Exh.P-27, attested copy of inquiry Exh.P-28, attested copy of statement of witnesses Exh.P-29, letter No.304 dated 11.08.2000 Mar-B, letter dated 31.05.2000 Mark-C, order dated 21.09.2000 Mark-D, letter dated 20.02.2011 Mark E, letter dated 11.09.2000 Mark-F, attested copy of application form Exh.P-30 and closed oral as well as documentary evidence. On the contrary, Muhammad Akram son of Ali Muhammad D.W-1, Sultan Sakandar D.W-2, Muhammad Naseem D.W-3 and tendered copy of identity card of plaintiff Exh.D-1, application for Exh.D-2, roll number slip Exh.D-3, order of appointment of inquiry officer Exh.D-4, letter of complaint Exh.D-5, application to SHO Exh.D-6, copy of FIR Exh.D-7, copy of charge sheet Exh.D-8, copy of order dated 10.05.2000 Exh.D-9, copy of application Exh.D-10, copy of metric certificate Exh.D-10/1, postal receipt Exh.D-10/2, copy of order dated 23.05.2000 Exh.D-11, application by plaintiff Exh.D-12, metric certificate Exh.D-12/1, copy of letter dated 31.05.2013 Exh.D-13, application by plaintiff Exh.D-14, copy of postal envelope Exh.D-14/1, copy of order dated 06.06.2000 Exh.D-15, copy of order dated 07.06.2000 Exh.D-16, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-17, copy of postal envelope and receipt Exh.D-17/1, copy of letter of inquiry Exh.D-18, copy of order of inquiry Exh.D-19, copy of application Exh.D-20, copy of letter of inquiry dated 09.05.2000 Exh.D-21, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-22, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-23, copy of inquiry Exh.D-24, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-25, copy of appeal Exh.D-26, copy of bank fee challan Exh.D-26/1, copy of postal receipt Exh.D-26/2, copy of letter dated 10.07.2000 Exh.D-27, copy of letter by plaintiff to controller Exh.D-28, copy of letter dated 01.09.2000 Exh.D-29, copy of letter by plaintiff dated 21.09.2000 Exh.D-30, copy of order of appellate committee Exh.D-31, copy of order dated 20.09.2000 Exh.D-32 and closed oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court after hearing final arguments vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2014 dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 in the following manner:- "
appeal in hand is hereby accepted and judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is set aside, impugned letter given in the head note of the plaint of the suit are hereby declared, null and void, in-effective and in-operative upon the rights of the plaintiff because these letters are based on the proceedings of Disciplinary Committee dated 6.6.2000 Ex.P-15 dated 21.9.2000 Ex.P-31, which are against the law, so both these orders are also set aside and inquiry against the appellant is considered to be still pending. The respondents are directed to carry out the proceedings of the inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee strictly in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds urged in the instant civil revision has argued that there was no reason that the matter would have been remanded to the Authority but the appeal should have been decided on its own merits as there is overwhelming evidence which has been ignored. Prays that by allowing civil revision in hand, impugned portion "inquiry against the appellant considered to be still pending. The respondents are directed to carry out the proceedings of the inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee strictly in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order" of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 passed by the learned Appellate Court may be set aside and suit of the petitioner may be decreed as prayed for.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Board has repelled the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and avers that petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity but he did not elect to appear before the competent forum. Although the orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee and Appellate Committee were non speaking but now the proceedings have been remanded back to the lawful forum, which will be decided in accordance with law. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The relevant provision of law under which the impugned order was passed is Rule 18 of Chapter V of the Rules appearing in the Board's calendar, which is reproduced herein below for the ready reference:-
18. Chairman's power to quash result. The Chairman shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared and cancel the certificate accordingly, if already result issued. 1) If he/she has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination; or 2) If a mistake is found in his/her result; or 3) If it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination; or 4) For Fraud, Forgery and Impersonation that may be determined by the Chairman. From the above quoted law, it is not disputed that petitioner's result was notified in 1997 but the above provision of law clearly stipulates that power to quash vests in the Chairman. I have gone through the record but there is no such order placed on the record by the respondent-Board. Even the Exh-D-32 through which petitioner was eventually intimated about dismissal of his appeal has not been issued by the Chairman. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Exh.D16/1, which was issued by the Controller of the Exam, has not been issued by the Chairman. When a thing is to be done in a manner provided under law, the same should be done in that manner and not otherwise. Reliance in this regard is placed on Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Anwar (2025 SCMR 153), Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Office, Islamabad v. Pakistan Oil Fields Ltd. Rawalpindi and others (2024 SCMR 853) and Nadir Khan v. Qadir Hussain and others (2024 SCMR 770).
6. Apart from the above, D.W-2 Sultan Sikandar appearing as witness for respondent-Board during cross-examination has deposed as under:- Muhammad Naseem Retired Assistant Controller appearing as D.W-3 during cross-examination has deposed that:- This particular piece of evidence clearly reflects that respondent-Board has no case against the petitioner on merits. All the P.Ws. produced by the petitioner stood the acid test of cross-examination and remained unscathed. No contradictions are found in the testimony of P.Ws. rather they remain firm with regard to the stance of the petitioner. There was not a single suggestion put to the petitioner while appearing as P.W-1 in the cross-examination that he did not appear in the examination and he procured the result card by employing unfair means. On the other hand evidence led by the respondents is full of material discrepancies. D.Ws. during their cross-examination admitted the stance of the petitioner that he appeared in the examination and passed it and certificate was issued to him and they did not say that petitioner/plaintiff procured certificate by using unlawful means. Courts below while passing impugned judgments and decrees have ignored this piece of evidence and have committed non reading and mis reading of evidence and in such cases interreference is permitted.
7. Sufficient material is available on record to decide the matter on merits and the parties had already led evidence and the material facts had clearly emerged. In such like cases remand is not an option rather Court should have decided the case on merits. Even otherwise, remand cannot be ordered to improve the case of one party and parties cannot be relegated to square one, when the complete evidence of the parties is available, the appellate court should have decided the matter.
8. In view of the above, learned Appellate Court has erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment impugned herein, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, the revision petition in hand succeeds and the same is allowed, impugned portion of judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 of the learned Appellate Court is set aside, consequent whereof the suit instituted by the petitioner stands decreed as prayed for. No order as to costs. MQ/M-45/L Revision allowed.