P L D 1976 Karachi 1154 (PLP)

NAIMUDDIN, J.-The petitioner passed Intermediate (Premedical) examination in the year, 1973 as a student of Government Islamia Science College, Sukkur in the Second Division with 454 marks out of 1000. The result published by the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Hyderabad in the Gazette declared him to have passed in the Second Division with 454 marks. However, the petitioner obtained a marks certificate from the Board showing him to have secured 635 marks and the First Division. On the basis of the certificate and declaration made by him that he had obtained 635 marks, he was given admission in the First Professional M. B., B. S. in Chandka Medical College, Larkana on 17-5-1975. The admission given to the petitioner in the medical college was under the rules subject to verification. The marks certificate submitted by the petitioner was sent to the Board for verification. On verification, it was discovered by respondent No. 1 that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was false. Therefore. by an order dated the 3rd of March, 1976 passed by respondent No. 1 the petitioner was expelled from the college with immediate effect. It is this order which is impugned by the petitioner in the Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. M. Hassanally A. Rehman, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions. His first contention is that admission could be cancelled in accordance with rule 13 of the Rules of Admission contained in the prospectus, if the petitioner had fraudulently sought admission by producing false marks certificate and since the petitioner is not responsible for the false certificate issued by respondent 2, he could not be penalised. The second contention is that the impugned order has been passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and as such the principle of natural justice has been violated. It is not disputed that the petitioner had obtained only 454 marks and the Second Division and not 635 marks and the First Division. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 2, by Siraj Ahmed Akhund, the Deputy Controller, Board of I. S. E., Hyderabad he has explained how the mistake in the marks certificate issued to the petitioner crept in. Accord ing to the explanation. the mistake appears to rave crept in as, while noting down the marks in the marks certificate of the petitioner bearing No. 7874, the marks of another candidate whose name and marks appeared just above the name of the petitioner, were by mistake noted. Therefore, the question is whether on such a certificate impugned action could be taken or not. Mr. Hassanally A. Rehman has pointed out rule 13 of the Rules of Admission contained in the prospectus in this respect. However, rules 14 and 15 are also relevant. Therefore, in order to appreciate the contention at is necessary to refer to them here:- "Rule 13.-All admissions are subject to verification. If at any stage, it is proved that the candidate has fraudulently sought admission either by producing false marks certificate or false domicile his admission will be immediately cancelled and he shall if deemed fit be prosecuted for fraud:- Therefore, all admissions are provisional subject to these condi tions. Rule 14.- A candidate, who for the purpose of getting admission in a medical college, furnishes or relies upon a certificate or any other document or information which is incorrect or false or which he knows or believes to be incorrect or false, shall cease to become eligible for admission in any medical college of Sind and also shall be liable for prosecution for perjury. Rule I5.-If at any stage it is found that any student has obtained admission by furnishing incorrect or false certificate or information he shall be expelled from the college and all fees paid by him or her shall be forfeited and he/she shall have to pay, to the Government the money spent on him/her and shall also be liable to be prosecuted for furnishing false evidence." It would be seen that It is rule 15 which is fully and undoubtedly attracted to this case if not rule

13. Under rule 15, it is provided that if at any stage it is found that any student has obtained admission by furnishing incorrect or false certificate he shall be expelled from the college. The certificate submitted by the petitioner was false, if not false at least admittedly incorrect. It would not make any difference according to the language of the rule, as to who was responsible for issuing the incorrect or false certificate. It 9s obvious that respondent 2 would not have knowingly signed incorrect or false certificate, most presumably it was the petitioner who managed to obtain an incorrect or false certificate as obviously, he was the only person to benefit by it. Indeed, from the result declared by the Board is the Gazette the petitioner knew that he had obtained 454 marks in Second Division. Even in the declaration, he did not disclose the incorrectness of the certificate which if disclosed, would have put respon dent 1 to immediate investigation and would not have on discovery of correct facts resulted in the admission of the petitioner into the college. In law, the word `false' usually implies either conscious wrong or culpable A negligence, and signifies knowing or negligently untrue. See United States v. Ninety-nine Diamonds (139 F R (U S A) 961 ). According t Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Adams (D C Mun. App. 37 A. 2d 345) the word 'false' has two distinct and well-recognised meanings (1) intentionally or knowingly or negligently untrue ; (2) untrue by mistake or accident, or honestly after the exercise of reasonable care, therefore, the petitioner's case squarely falls under rule 15 and also falls within the mischief of rule 13 and therefore, the impugned action is in accordance therewith. It is net petitioner's case that on the basis of the true marks and the division obtained by him, he would have got admission into the college. The second contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard is also not correct because in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 1, it is stated that the petitioner was expelled from the college after giving him adequate opportunity of showing cause. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been promoted to the Second Year in the month of March, 1976, and thus he would lose one valuable year of his life. On this score, the petitioner had already made representations to the Health Minister and the Chief Minister, who had first passed favourable orders but on disclosure of the correct facts by the college authorities had withdrawn the same. In Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education (P L D 1971 S C 838) (on similar facts and on a similar question) his Lordship Sajjad Ahmed Jan, J. was pleased to observe as follows: "The argument appears to canvass that even where admission is obtained by dishonest representation or fraudulent means, it received immunity after the lapse of one year. Lapse of time does not sanctify an action based on fraud and misrepresentation." We, therefore, do not find any force in the contentions and in the result dismiss the petition with costs. S. Q. Petition dismissed