2001 PLP 573 (MLD)

Fail in Three Subjects AD 514/533, AD 523/643 Theory, AF 614/423 Theory. (iii) 1st Annual Examination 1999. 38132 Fail in one subject AD 514/553 Theory. (iv) 2nd Annual Examination 1999. 25255 Fail in one subject AD 523/643 Theory. (v) 1st Annual Examination 2000. 36131 Result awaited. The aforesaid chart reveals that petitioner appeared in the Diploma of Associate Examination 3rd year held by the respondents first time and 2nd Annual Examination, 1997 under Roll No.20741 in all the subjects. Out of which the petitioner passed three subjects but was failed in five subjects. Thereafter, petitioner appeared in the aforesaid five subjects in the 1st Annual Examination, 1998 and was passed two subjects and was shown to have been failed to in three subjects. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the 1st Annual Examination in the above said three subjects but was shown to have been passed in two subjects but he has been shown as failed in one subject. The subject in which the petitioner has been shown to have been failed was mentioned as A.D. 514/553. Petitioner sent the form for 2nd Annual Examination 1999 in the abovementioned subject A.D. 514/553. Petitioner appeared in the said Examination in the said paper. The result was declared qua the 2nd Annual Examination, 1999 which reveals that the petitioner was shown to have been failed in the subject A.D. 523/643 Theory (Theory of Auto Motive Transmission) whereas the petitioner had already passed this subject in 1st Annual Examination, 1999 as is evident from the result gazettee of the said Examination. The petitioner was directed to appear by the respondents in the subject A.D. 523/643 in the coming Examination 1st Annual Examination, 2000. Petitioner's father being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents filed an application before respondent No.1 on 8-2-2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is penalised by the in action of the respondents. He further submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority.

3. Learned Legal Advisor of the respondents submits -that petitioner was only failed in the subject of A.D. 523/643 theory in the 1st Annual Examination, 1999 but inadvertently the result published in the gazettee showing the petitioner as failed in the subject of A.D. 5514/553 (Theory) This mistake was rectified vide tabulating the result 2nd Annual Examination, 1999. The petitioner has now availed a chance and appeared in the 1st Annual Examination, 2000 under Roll No.36131 to clear the failing subjects i.e. A.D. 523/643 (theory). He summed up his arguments that the Chairman has appointed Prof. Miraj-ud-Din, Inquiry Officer to probe into the matter and fixed responsibility. He further submits that the aforesaid facts are duly supported by the original record of the respondent as is evident from Annexure R attached with the report and parawise comments. He summed up his arguments that respondents had no malice against the petitioner. Petitioner's father application filed before the Chairman is under consideration.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioner appeared in the 1st Annual Examination, 1999 held by the respondents and petitioner was declared failed in A.D.514/533 Theory) (Auto Diesel Fuel Injunction and Corroboration Theory). The petitioner submitted his admission form to appear in the aforesaid mentioned failing subjects for 2nd Annual 1999 Examination. The result does not contain any entry regarding the aforesaid failing subjects whether the petitioner has passed the subject or not. The result gazettee reveals otherwise that the petitioner failed in the subject A.D.523/643 theory (Theory of Auto Motive Transmission). It is pertinent to mention here that the result gazettee itself appears the following entries "Any entry appear in this notification does not in itself confer any right or privilege to a candidate for the grant of the certificate which will be issued under the regulations on the basis of the original record in the Board's Office". On the basis of the aforesaid entry this Court laid down the following principle in Rehat Siddiqui's case PLD 1975 Lahore 257. "The entries in the "result gazettee" are thus, not clothed with unfettered sanctity". The aforesaid judgment of this Court was confirmed by the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1977 SCMR 213 (Rehat Siddiqui's case). It is pertinent to mention here that counter-foils/award lists and external result sheets of the respondents show that the petitioner did not pass the paper in question as alleged by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents is valid. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:-- PLD 2000 Karachi 154 (Farrukh-ud-Din's case) and 1999 SCMR 2604 (Amjad Yasin's case). It is also admitted fact that the petitioner appeared in the subsequent Examination. Therefore, petitioner is estopped to challenge the same on the well-known principles of estoppel and waiver as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool's case PLD 1971 SC

376. The respondents are well within their right to direct the petitioner to appear in the failing subject as per their rules and regulations. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that the respondents violated any rules and regulations framed by the respondents on the subject. In this view of the matter the writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case 1994 SCMR

433. Petitioner did not allege any malice against the respondents. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by this Court in Saeed Nawaz's case PLD 1981 Lahore

371. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is penalised by the in action of the respondents. It is every strange to note that on account of the bad action of the official/officer of the respondents did not take any action against their official/officers. Mere appointment, of Inquiry Officer does not sufficient. It is pertinent to mention here that since the creation of Pakistan there are only few instances were supervisory staff/examiners and employees of the Board and University were convicted and sentenced. The aforesaid circumstances reveal that the final accountability of all the institutions is individual, his or her action, his or her failure makes or breaks the Institutions and how should the individual be the Institution? in our beloved Country by following Qur'an and Sunnah. In other words my authenticity by my values i.e. only possible by strong conviction/faith makes us true man. In the interest of justice and fair play, let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman of the Board to hold inquiry as to how it happened that the petitioner was declared successful in the failing paper. This shows that there are some loophole in the system of Examination conducted by the Board which need to be immediately plugged to attach a respectable status to academic certificates issued by the Board. If need be, the Board can recourse to criminal or disciplinary action, if any of its employees is found to be guilty in the preparation or issuance of this bogus certificate or other certificates of its kind. The Chairman of the Board shall after holding comprehensive and detailed inquiry will send his finding to the Additional Registrar of this Court within-three months. So, that if necessary, further action may be initiated to uphold the sanctity of the Educational Institutions in the country. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. H.B.T./S-118/L Order accordingly.