2004 PLP 1901 (CLC)

(iii) Direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to act in accordance with law on the letter of respondent No.4 (Annexure "C ). (iv) To declare the candidate who got the next highest votes as the successful returned candidate. (v) Any other/additional relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (vi) Cost of the proceedings."

22. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent No. 1 on 19-11-2002 filed a Constitution Petition No.D-1923 of 2002 before the Principal Seat of Sindh High Court impugning the Notification, dated 18-10-2002 issued by the Sindh University whereby the pass certificate and degree issued in the name of respondent No.1 were declared bogus/fake. One of the grounds raised in the petition reproduced hereunder:

"(f) That another aspect of malice by the defeated candidate of the petitioner could well be visualized that up to date if the petitioner was and is disqualified to have contested the elections and had become the returned candidate, then the recourse available to him was and is under the provisions of section 52 of the Representation of People Act, 1976 to approach the Elections Tribunal which has been duly constituted and notified which could adjudicate upon the issue of the alleged disqualification of the petitioner. Such resort has yet not been made by the rival candidate of the petitioner against the petitioner." 23 The Constitution petition filed by the respondent No.1 contains the following prayers:

"(i) Declare the notification bearing No. Exam/SEC: Verification/380, dated 18-10-2002 issued by the Assistant Controller of Examinations Secret (Annual) University of Sindh. Jamshoro from the office of the Controller of Examination, University of Sindh to be illegal, unlawful and of no legal consequences. (ii) To direct the Registrar of this Honourable Court or any Officer of this Honourable Court to proceed to the respondent University and seal the record of the petitioners academic qualification being maintained by the University of Sindh at Jamshoro and place the same before this Honourable Court. (iii) To suspend the operation of the impugned Notification bearing No Exam/SEC. Verification/380; dated 18-10-2002 pending disposal of this petition. (iv) To direct the respondents to take a specific position as to whether the domicile provided by the petitioner in relation to his qualification are genuine or otherwise. (v) To grant cost of the petition. (vi) To grant any other relief/relieves' as deemed fit and propel in the circumstances of the case."

24. Copies of both these Constitution petitions were filet by the respondent No.1 along with his application C.M.A. 2576/2003 under section 151, C.P.C. seeking sine die adjournment of this Election Petition, which was made on 20-12-2003. By order, dated 22-12-2003 the said application was dismissed by this Tribunal.

25. The record further reveals that the petitioner has approached the Honourable Governor of Sindh who is Chancellor of Sindh University prior to filing of the Constitution Petition No.D-1967 of 200 with a request to order detailed inquiry to ascertain the genuineness, of the Notification, dated 18-10-2002. On 18-12-2002 the Honourable Governor of Sindh has passed an order (Exhibit 23) which was communicated to the Vice Chancellor. Sindh University. While directing the Vice Chancellor to constitute a High Powered Committee for holding inquiry, the Honourable Governor. as an interim measure, has suspended the Notification, dated 18-10-2002. issued by the Sindh University,. On 22-11-2002 (Exhibit 24) the Vice Chancellor, Sindh University, has addressed a letter to the Additional Secretary to the Governor, informing, him that the issue of genuineness of the degree and certificate of the respondent No.1 was sub judice in Constitution Petition No.D-384 of 2002 and sought further direction of the Honourable Governor On 30-11-2002 pursuant to the directive of the Governor, the Vice Chancellor constituted a High Powered Committee to examine the genuineness of degree of BA (Pass) Part-11 1985 Seat No.3420 issued to the respondent No.1 along with the relevant papers. The Vice Chancellor nominated following officials as Governor. Members and Secretary of the High Powered Committee:

"

1. Mr. Ahmed Ali Shaikh, Dean. Faculty of Law Convenor and Member of the Syndicate

2. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Usman Memon, Member Director, Institute of Pharmacy. University of Sindh.

3. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Rajput, Chairman, Member Department of Statistics University of Sindh.

4. Prof. Dr. Anwar Ali Shah G. Syed, Director, Member Institute of Business Administration, University of Sindh.

5. Mr. Agha Riaz Hassan, Chairman, Department Member of Commerce, University of Sindh 6 The Deputy Controller of Examinations Secretary" (Annual), University of Sindh.

26. The Committee examined the record and also issued notices to the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 who appeared/participated in the inquiry conducted by the High Powered Committee. The petitioner as well as respondent No.1 were provided opportunity of hearing and were allowed to file documents.

27. During the pendency of inquiry the respondent No.1 addressed a letter, dated 21-12-2002 to the Honourable Governor of Sindh (Exhibits 26/38) intimating him that since the present Election Petition was filed by the petitioner before this Tribunal, therefore, the inquiry before the High Powered Committee be stayed as the controversy maybe allowed to be resolved through adjudication in Election Petition. The respondent No.1 also addressed a letter, dated 24-12-2002 (Exhibits 26/37) to the Convenor of the High Powered Committee requesting him to postpone the meeting scheduled on 24-12-2002. The respondent No.1 in his said letter had stated that the issues which were to be answered by the High Powered Committee through inquiry be allowed to be adjudicated upon in the Election Petition filed by the petitioner.

28. The respondent No.1 appeared before the High Powered Committee or 24-12-2002 and filed documents, which include written statement filed in the Election Petition, copy of representation, dated 21-12-2002 addressed to the Honourable Governor of Sindh and photocopy of an affidavit of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon. No other academic document was filed by, the respondent No.1 before the High Powered Committee. The Committee after hearing the parties and perusal' of the record has submitted the following report (Exhibit 26):

"In view of the observations stated above and the relevant record so far available as annexed herewith along with this report, the Committee is of the considered view that the degree certificate issued to Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo is not genuine at all and is false and fake. Accordingly, Notification dated 18-10-2002 issued by the University of Sindh, declaring the degree certificate as false and bogus is correct. The Committee in order to ensure transparency in the institution suggests that the officials concerned in the Secret Branch of the University of Sindh be taken to task and recommends , for imposition of major penalty under relevant rules. The Committee was also conscious of the proceedings/ adjudication of the matter before various forums including Honourable High Court of Sindh, as such suggested that the instant report be not exposed, unless the matter is finally decided therein, lest, it may come under the domain of contempt." (emphasis added).

29. On the other hand, the Constitution Petition No.D-384 of 2002 filed against the respondent No.1 was ordered to be transferred to and be heard at the Principal Seat of the Honourable Sindh High Court along with Constitution Petition No.D-1923 of 2002 filed by the respondent No.

1. The Constitution Petition No.D-384 of 2002 was renumbered as C.P. No.D-1967 of 2002 and was tagged with the Constitution petition filed by the respondent No.

1. Both the aforesaid Constitution Petitions are being adjourned at times apparently on the ground that since the present Election Petition having been filed before this Tribunal and the issues raised in both the aforesaid Constitution petitions were common to those proceedings, therefore, the same be decided by this Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties.

30. It has been argued by Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent No.1 was not qualified to contest the elections of National Assembly from Constituency NA-236, Sanghar III, as on the date of filing of the nomination papers he was not a graduate. He submitted that academic documents i.e. B.A. degree and the Marks Certificate filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny were declared fake and bogus by the Sindh University pursuant to the Notification dated 18-10-2002 and in this respect the record of the Sindh University had been produced before this Tribunal through P.W.1, Dr. Abdul Razzak Abro, Controller of Examinations, clearly establishes that the respondent No.1 never passed B.A. (Pass) Part-11 Examinations under State No.3420 from Sindh University and the academic documents referred to hereinabove were procured by the respondent No.1 with the connivance of the University staff by tampering with the record of the Sindh University. He has pointed out various exhibits/record produced by the Controller of Examinations, Sindh University in support of his contention.

31. Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi submitted that on perusal of the entire academic record pertaining to the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 of the Sindh University shows that Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon has appeared and passed B.A. (Pass) Part-11 Annual Examination of 1984-85 under the Seat No.3420 and was placed on 2nd Division. He submits that on the basis of Exhibits 13, 13-A, 15, 15-A, 17 and 17-A, the respondent No. 1 with the connivance of the staff of the Sindh University had tampered with the University record by superimposing the forged seat list on the actual seat list and substituted his name in place of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon in the entry against Seat No.3420 and procured the degree and pass/Marks Certificate which were made basis for accepting his nomination paper. He submits that there is no double pasting of the seat list on any of the Ledger in the entire University Record except Exhibits 13, 15 and

17. He further states that the Nigh Powered Committed which was holding the inquiry examined the record on detaching the portion of superimposed fictitious sheets of seat lists found that on the original seat list when uncovered by detachment surfaced the name of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon against Seat No. 3420.

32. Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi argued that there was no document in the University record produced before this Tribunal which could show that the respondent No.1 was either enrolled or appeared in exams and or ever allotted the Seat. Number 3420 as candidate for B.A. (Pass) Part-II or Seat No.4614 ,as candidate for B.A. (Pass) Part-I. It was further argued on the learned counsel that even the attendance sheets for B.A. (Pass) Part-I and Part-11 pertaining to academic years 1984-85 and 1985-86 of Shahdadpur Centre do not show that the respondent No.1 who claims to have appeared from Shahadpur Centre ever appeared in the different papers on different dates in the examinations and instead these attendance sheets Exhibits. 3 to 12 show the signatures of Muhammad Rafique son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon. He also relied upon the report of the High Powered Committee (Exhibit 26), which committee after holding inquiry has submitted its report. He, therefore, submitted that in the face of overwhelming documentary evidence the respondent No. has never passed B.A. (Pass) Part-II Annual Examination and has procured the Marks Certificate and B.A. Degree by tampering with the University record to connivance with the University, staff and was never qualified to contest the elections on the date of filing of nomination under section 99(1)(cc) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that the election of respondent No.1 from NA-236, Sanghar-III be declared void.

33. The second leg of argument of Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi was that the petitioner was liable to be declared as returnee candidate in terms of section 67(1)(c) and section 69 of the Act. In this respect he submitted that the respondent No.1 has secured 66543 whereas the petitioner has secured 56628 votes, the second highest w number in the constituency. It was argued that since the respondent No.1 was disqualified in the face of the documentary evidence proceed by the Sindh University before this Tribunal, the petitioner was entitled to be declared duly elected. In this regards he has cited number of judgments starting from PLD 1968 SC 301, 1986 MLD 2011, 2002 CLC 1807, 1975 SCMR 409 and 198616 SCMR 1701.

34. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and have perused the record. However, I have not been benefited by the arguments of the counsel for the respondent No.1 who by a statement in writing had pleaded no instructions. Before reading evidence, the petitioner's counsel had made a statement that he will not press any other issue including the issue of rigging of elections and will only press this Election Petition on the issue of disqualification of respondent No. 1 in H terms of section 99(1)(cc) of the Act.

35. The respondent No.1 claims to have passed his B.A. (Pass) Part-II under Seat No.3420 in Annual Examination held in 1985 from Sindh University, which examinations were held in February, 1986 and the result of the same was declared on 5-8-1986 and the respondent No.1 was placed in 2nd Division. The respondent No.1 along with his written statement has filed copy of the Marks Certificate (Annexure C). Degree Certificate (Annexure D) and Pass Certificate of B.A. (Pass) Part-II (Annexure E).'The respondent No.1 also file copy of the seat list of B.A. (Pass) Part-II Annual Examination 1985 of Shahdadpur Centre in which his name appears at serial No.10.

36. The University from which the respondent No.1 claims to have passed his graduation has produced the entire record in respect of the examinations of B.A. (Pass) Part-I and B.A. (Pass) Part-II, held by them of the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. According to the record of the University, it was Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon who was enrolled as a candidate in the Sindh University and had passed the B.A. (Pass) Part-II Annual Examinations under Seat No.3420 from Shahdadpur Centre for Annual Examination of 1985-86 which were held by the Sindh University in the ,month of January, 1986 and was placed in 2nd Class. In proof of this fact P.W.1 had produced Notification of 18-10-2002 (Exhibit 22) in which Marks and Degree Certificates of B.A. (Pass) Part-I Annual Examination of 1984 having Seat No.4614 and B.A. (Pass) Part-II, Annual Examination, 1985 under Seat No3420 in the name of respondent No.1 after verification found bogus/false.

37. The witness Dr. Abdul Razzak Abro had produced Exhibit 2 which is the extract of the enrolment register pertaining to the academic years 1,983-84 and 1984-85 containing Exhibit 3 which was an entry against the name of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramazan Memon who was shown to have passed H.Sc. Examinations in 1983 and was enrolled by the Sindh University against the Enrollment No.38085-A on 21-3-1985. According to the P.W.1 a candidate who is not enrolled with the Sindh University, cannot appear in the exams of B.A. (Pass) Part-I and or Part-II, There is no entry in the enrollment register maintained by the Sindh University either in the academic years of 1983 84 or in 1984-85 to show that the respondent No.1 was ever enrolled with the Sindh University. Dr. Abdul Razak Abro, P.W. 1 has produced Exhibit 4 to Exhibit 8, which are attendance sheets of the candidates who had appeared from Shahdadpur Centre in B.A. (Pass) Part-I Examinations on different dates in different subjects. These exhibits contained the signature of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon against his allotted Seat No.4614 in B.A. (Pass) Part-I. Neither the name nor the signature of the respondent No.1 appears on any of these exhibits to establish that he appeared in the examination of B.A. (Pass) Part-I in 1984-85. The University witness further produced Exhibit 9 to Exhibit 12, which were, attendance sheets of the candidates of Shahdadpur Centre who appeared in B.A. (Pass) Part-II Annual Examination which commenced on 6-2-1986 onward. These exhibits also mention the signatures of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan. Memon against his allotted Seat No.3420. Neither the name nor the signature of the respondent No.1 appears on any of these attendance sheets to establish the claim of respondent No.1 that he has appeared in B.A. (Pass) Part-II Annual Examinations from Shahdadpur Centre under Seat No.3420. Moreover, these attendance sheets (Exhibits 4 to 12) are maintained by the invigilators/head invigilators or other staff of the Examination Centre and after the examinations are over the attendance sheets (Exhibits 4 to 12) are transmitted to the University for its record. Mr. Raja Qureshi while cross-examining the P.W.1 has not suggested a single question in regard to the veracity of the Exhibits 4 to 12 and same were allowed to be produced without any objection from the respondent No. 1 side.

38. The second set of documentary evidence which has been. produced by the P.W.1 was two Ledger Books which were the results of B.A. (Pass) Part-I and B.A. (Pass)' Part-II each for the academic years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Out of the two original Ledger Books of B.A. (Pass) Part-I one is called "Checker's Copy of Secret Section" whereas the other is its duplicate ledger and is called "Top Secret Ledger". Each page of these Ledgers has two portions. The right half portion of the Ledger is printed and contains the columns of different subjects, column of grand total and the column of remarks showing whether the candidate had passed or failed in the examination, besides, the previous seat number. The half of the portion on left said is blank and is pasted by a typed page called "Seat List". This typed page which is called seat list contains the Ledger page number, name of the Examination, Centre from, which the examination was conducted, seat number, name of the candidate, father's name, surname, the previous seat number and year. This seat list is pasted on the left half portion of- the Ledger. In the printed half right portion the marks of the candidates are written in hand along with the remarks. The Duplicate Ledger, which is called "Top Secret Ledger" is also maintained in the same manner as mentioned hereinabove. The "Checker's Copy" of Secret Section is signed by the Cherker. Tabulator, Secrecy Officer and Controller of Examinations whereas the Top Secret Ledger (Duplicate) is only signed by the Tabulator. These two Ledgers are in custody of two different officials of the University.

39. Controller of Examination, P. W.1 has produced page 233 of the Checker's Copy Secret Section as Exhibit 13 pertaining to the result of B.A. (Pass) Part-I Annual Examination of 1984 which were held in January, 1985, seat list of which was tampered with by superimposition of fictitious seat list. The superimposed fictitious seat list contained identical particulars of the candidate as appeared on the original seat list except that against the entry of Seat No.4614 the name of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramazan Memon was substituted by the name of respondent No.1 (Exhibit 13-A). The witness deposed that this fact of superimposition of the seat list revealed when the High Powered Committee examined the record with great difficulty, when some--portion of the fictitious seat list was detached the name of Muhammad-Rafique son of Muhammad Ramazan Memon transpired on the original seat list against Seat No.4614 which fact appears in Exhibits 14 and 14-A.

40. Similarly on page 233 of the "Top Secret Ledger" (duplicate ledger) Exhibit 15, the original seat list was superimposed by another fictitious seat list. The particulars of all the candidates appearing in the fictitious seat list were identical to that of the original seat list on which it was superimposed except that Exhibit 15-A in which the name of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramazan Memon was substituted by the name of the respondent No.1 against the entry of Seat No.4614. The University witness in his evidence deposed that on detaching some portion of the fictitious seat list by the High Powered Committee the name of Muhammad Rafiq surfaced against the Seat No.4614. Exhibit 15-B and Exhibit 15-C.

41. The Exhibit 16, page 161, of the Checker's Copy of Secret Section, pertains to the results of the Annual Examinations, 1985 of B.A. (Pass) Part-II with the previous year's Seat No.4614 and Exhibit 16-A contains the name of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramazan Memon against Seat No.3420. This seat list was original and does not have any fictitious superimposed seat list. However, the Top Secret Ledger (page 161), Exhibit 17, which is duplicate copy of Exhibit 16 has been tampered with in the identical manner by superimposing a fictitious seat list on the original seat list in which all the particulars of the Candidates are identical .to that original seat list except that the name of Muhammad Rafiq son .of Muhammad Ramazan Memon has been replaced by the name of respondent No.1. Exhibit 17-A, against Seat No.3420. On detaching the portion .of the fictitious seat list by the High Powered Committee the name of Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramazan Memon surfaced on the original seat list against Seat No.3420, Exhibit 18 and Exhibit 18-A.

42. The witness of the University has further deposed that typing strokes of superimposed scat lists are different than the typing strokes of actual seat list. He further deposed that the pages of Ledgers of Checker's Copy Secret Section and (duplicate) Top Secret Ledger which were produced and or brought on record in Court, do not have any superimposed seat list except in page 233 of Checker's Copy of Secret Section and top Secret Ledger and on page 161 of, the Top Secret Ledger. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has not objected to any of these documents which were produced and exhibited in evidence. The only suggestion which was given to` the University witness by the counsel of the respondent No.1 was that the Vice Chancellor of Sindh University was a friend of the petitioner and under his directive the University record was tampered with by the staff of the Sindh University which suggestion was denied by the P.W.1. The petitioner was examined as P.W.2 and has relied upon his entire evidence on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by P. W.1.

43. In the written statement the .respondent No.1 has merely denied the allegation of forgery of his academic documents but has neither filed any other academic document showing his educational qualification as B.A. except copies of B. A. degree. B. A. (Pass) Part-II Certificate/Marks Sheet and copy of seat list of Shahdadpur. Centre nor has he given any particulars of his educational qualification as to when he passed his Metric examination Intermediate examination and or when was he enrolled in the Sindh University. Even not only in this Election Petition but also in Constitution Petition No.D-1923 of 2002 which was filed by him before the Sindh High Court, such particulars are missing. The respondent No.1 has appeared on 24-12-2002 before the High Powered Committee who was conducting inquiry at-his request and he did not submit any document and or any particular before the Committee.

44. In the face of the documentary evidence which is the authentic record of the Sindh University from whose custody it was produced, it is established beyond doubt that the respondent No. 1 was issued the B.A. (Pass) Part-II Certificate. Degree and marks sheet, copies of Which he has annexed with his written statement, were fake documents and were procured by tampering with the Checker's Copy of Secret Section and Top Secret Ledgers Exhibit 13, Exhibit 15 and Exhibit

17. Even the record shows that the respondent No.1 was not enrolled with the Sindh University. I, therefore, hold that the respondent No.1 was not qualified to contest the elections for the National Assembly on the date of filing of his nomination papers for want of his academic qualification as the Degree. Certificate, BA (Pass) Part-II Certificate and the marks Certificate produced by him before the Returning Officer were fake and bogus.

45. In regard to the second submission of Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi that the petitioner was entitled to be declared elected in place of the Returned Candidate. I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel in support of his submission. There is no K cavil in regard to the powers of this Tribunal to declare the petitioner or any contesting candidate to be duly elected under the provisions of section 67(1)(c) and section 69 of the Act, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the petitioner or such other contesting candidate was entitled to be declared elected.

46. The expression "satisfaction" used in section 69 of the Act implies objective satisfaction. In order to claim the relief of the nature what is required by a party is to establish that the disqualification of the Returned Candidate was notorious. In the present case, the petitioner has neither pleaded in his petition nor has led any evidence to show that either the petitioner or voters of the constituency were in knowledge of the disqualification of the respondent No. 1 either prior to elections and or on the date of election which was 10-10-2002. The petitioner's own case is pleaded in the petition was that he for the first time on 18-10-2002 after the elections were over had approached the Sindh University with an application seeking verification of the degree and marks certificate of the respondent No.1 and on 18-10-2002 the petitioner for the first time acquired knowledge of the disqualification of the respondent No.1. Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi, had argued that in constitution petition No.D-384 of 2002 (new number 1967 of 2002) the petitioners therein in para. 4 of the said petition have pleaded that they were in knowledge that the respondent No. 1 was disqualified from contesting the elections. These petitioners in the said Constitution Petition are strangers to the present proceedings. The petitioner has not examined any of these persons as his witness. Mere statement of fact pleaded in the memo. of a Constitution petition in collateral proceedings by a stranger to this Election could not be treated as evidence for the purposes of declaring the petitioner duly elected in terms of section 67(1)(c) and section 69 of the Act. The law in this respect as propounded by the Honourable Supreme Court is unambiguous.

47. In absence of any evidence before this Tribunal that the petitioner and the voters of the Constituency prior to elections were in knowledge of the disqualification of the respondent No.1, the petitioner would not be entitled to be declared as elected unless there is convincing evidence that the disqualification of the respondent No. 1 was notorious. The principles laid down in all these authorities cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner does not help the petitioner as neither the petitioner has pleaded nor did he lead any evidence before this Tribunal to establish that the disqualification of the respondent No. 1 was notorious warranting this Tribunal to declare the petitioner as duly elected in place of the respondent No.

1. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rashid Ahmed v. Barkat Ali reported in PLD 1968 SC 301 is, otherwise, distinguishable on facts and has no application to the facts of the present case.

48. For the aforesaid reasons I allow respondent No. 1 was not on the nomination day, qualified to contest the elections for want of academic qualification in terms of section 99(1)(cc) of the Act. The degree and Certificate of B.A. (Pass) Part-II Annual Examination 1985 submitted by the respondent No. 1 before the. Returning Officer along with his nomination papers, copies of which were filed by the respondent No. 1 along with his written statement, in these proceedings, were false and bogus. The election of the respondent No. 1, therefore, is declared void and fresh election is ordered in the constituency. The petitioner, however, is not entitled to be declared elected under section 67(1)(c) and section 69 of the Act as there was no evidence on record to establish that the disqualification of the respondent No. 1 was notorious.

49. Before parting with the judgment, I feel it necessary to observe that the custodians of the University record are required to be vigilant. It is unfortunate that the record of the University (both the Ledgers) was allowed to be tampered with to benefit the respondent No.

1. If this practice is allowed to be continued, it would shake the confidence of the public in general and students in particular. It is hoped that the Vice Chancellor of the Sindh University shall take stern action in, accordance with law against the University officials, who were either guilty and or were instrumental in tampering with the record to benefit the respondent No. 1 and Registrar of the Sindh University shall be made personally responsible to ensure that sanctity of record is maintained in future. Copy of this order be communicated to the Vice Chancellor. Sindh University, through its Registrar. H.B.T./F-12/K Petition allowed accordingly.