1986 PLP 747 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR — Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 747 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | K.M.A. Samdani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR — Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Educational institution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 747 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 747 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: K.M.A. Samdani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 747 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR — Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Farani, Bar-at-Law for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Unfair means case--Replacement of sheets in answer book of examinee after examination was over--No one other than examinee was to get benefit from such replacement--Authorities, held, justified in holding examinee responsible for resorting to unfair means in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Unfair means case‑‑Replacement of sheets in answer book of examinee after examination was over‑‑No one other than examinee was to get benefit from such replacement‑‑Authorities, held, justified in holding examinee responsible for resorting to unfair means in circumstances. M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law for Petitioner. Parawise comments have been received and perused. This is a case in which certain sheets in the petitioner's answer book were replaced after the examination was over. This was detected by the University authorities before the declaration of result, and the petitioner's result was accordingly withheld. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a notice to show cause why action should not be taken, against him. His case before the authorities was that it was not he who' had tampered with the answer book. He expressed his complete ignorance about it. The substituted sheets were admittedly not in his hand. It is obvious that no one other than the petitioner could get benefit from the substitution, The University authorities were, therefore, justified in holding the petitioner responsible for the unfair means resorted to. In these circumstances no interference by this Court is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. M.Y.H Petition dismissed.