1994 PLP 211 (MLD)

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in FSC Pre-Medical Examination in Spring 1985 under Roll No.3036 and failed in all the subjects. The admission form bearing No. 3968 bears the correct photograph of the petitioner and has been certified by the Principal, Government College, Gujranwala. Thereafter, he appeared in Autumn 1985 and could clear only three subjects. He again appeared in Spring 1986 under Roll No. 3903 and passed the examination securing 692 marks. His form bearing correct photograph was attested by the Principal, Government Islamia College, Gujranwala. The form sent for the examination held in Autumn 1985, however, bears the photograph of some other person. This led the respondent to believe that some other person had appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the examination of Autumn.

2. The Controller of Examinations respondent No.1 issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on the ground that he managed to send some other person for taking the examination held in Spring 1986. The petitioner controverted the allegation and submitted his detailed reply. After hearing the petitioner his result was ordered to be cancelled by respondent No.2. The petitioner's appeal against the said order was rejected on 17-8-1992.

3. The petitioner's learned counsel contends as under:

(i) The petitioner's Roll No. Slip (Annexure `B') was issued to him when he appeared in examination for Autumn, 1985 contains his original photograph. Without the said slip, he could not have been admitted into Examination Hall. (ii) The petitioner had signed the daily attendance sheet, in the Examination Hall personally. The same has been withheld by the respondent. (iii) The argument that the petitioner's photograph borne on the form for Examination 1985 was attested by the Headmaster of a School was never raised before the Discipline Committee. The petitioner has already appeared in B.Sc. Physiotherapy, Mayo Hospital, Lahore in the final examination and serious prejudice will be caused to him if his F.Sc. result is cancelled at this stage. He explains that sometimes the photographs are not properly affixed and are removed while handling the form and affixed by the clerical staff. Perhaps the same happened in the petitioner's case and some employee of the Board has mistakenly affixed the photographs of some other person on the petitioner's form. (iv) No charge-sheet was issued in respect of the F.Sc. Examination held in Autumn, 1985.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the petitioner did not personally appear in the examination held in Autumn, 1985. In this connection he refers to the admission form of the petitioner for the said examination which bears the photographs of some other person.

5. There is considerable force in the arguments raised by the petitioner's learned counsel. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner pertains to the F.Sc. examination held in Spring, 1986. I have seen the record which contains the petitioner's original admission form for his appearance in the F.Sc. examination for Spring, 1986. It contains the petitioner's correct photograph. The admission form for examination pertaining to Autumn, 1985 bears the photographs of some other person. It is strange that the charge-sheet as well as the show-cause notice pertain to the examination for Spring, 1986 in which the petitioner admittedly appeared himself. His result has been cancelled on the assumption that some other person appeared in the said examination. The respondents did not file any written statement to controvert the petitioner's claim that even in the examination held in Autum, 1985 he had personally appeared and that the Roll No. Slip issued to him by the office and produced before the Central Superintendent bore the original photographs. A photo copy of the Roll No. Slip has been placed on the record as Annexure `B' correctness whereof has not been denied by the respondents. The petitioner's result could not have been cancelled on the ground that his admission form for the examination for Autumn, 1985 bore the photograph of some other person without affording him an opportunity of being heard in that behalf. The respondents do not allege that some person other than the petitioner had appeared in the examination held in Spring, 1986. Therefore, the charge-sheet as well as the show-cause notice issued to him on the allegations of impersonation contained therein were entirely misconceived, arbitrary and illegal.

6. Therefore, I accept this petition and declare the impugned orders to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M-1247/L Petition accepted.