1989 PLP 1903 (MLD)

When all these facts carne to light, a show-cause notice dated 2-9-198 was issued by the Principal of Liaquat Medical College, the respondent No. I therein (sic) that the marks sheet showing 667 mark, is as correct as it is issued by the Board of I.S.E. Hyderabad duly signed by the Controller of Examinations. The respondent No.1, however, was not satisfied with the explanation and found that the admission was secured on the basis of forged certificate. The respondent No.1 by his letter dated 27/30th November, 1985 cancelled the admission of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has thereupon filed this Petition on 11-12-1985 praying inter alia (1) that orders dated 27/30th November, 1985 are without lawful authority (b) the respondent No. 1 be restrained from taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to the order. The petition was placed for preliminary hearing (kutcha peshi) on 18-12-1985. Petition was admitted on 19-12-1985 and interim relief was granted permitting petitioner for attending the classes during the pendency of the petition. Mr. S. Jehangir Hussain Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it was based on no evidence and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity- to defend himself and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated. In the para-wise comments, filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, it is not denied that the copy of letter dated 18-11-1985 was not supplied to the petitioner prior to show-cause notice. On the other hand Mr. Pir Bux Khamisani, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 and 4 has submitted that the petitioner has tampered with the marks certificate and by enhancing the marks from 617 to 67.7 has succeeded to get admission in Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed to the petition. To judge the merits of the petitioner's claim we have to see whether or not the decision of the respondent No. 1 cancelling the admission of the petitioner is supported by any direct and circumstantial evidence. The un-controverted allegations of para 2 of the Petition and the affidavit are that the petitioner passed his Higher Secondary Certificate Parts I and II Annual Examination from respondent No.2-under Seat No.31657. The Petitioner was issued marks sheet No.W5210 Book No. 53 bearing Scat No.31657 dated 27-8-1984 showing 677 marks and placed in Grade `B'. The respondent No.4 has admitted in his letter dated 18-11-1985 that the marks certificate bears his printed signature but the particulars and the marks are tampered after issuance of this certificate in order to get undue benefit of admission. The tabulator or the person who issued the certificate; has not filed any affidavit in this regard. In the absence of any material on record it cannot be said that the certificate was tampered with by the petitioner. The tabulator or the author of the marks certificate who had prepared the marks certificate gave him 677 marks and placed him in Grade `B'. He did not suspect any tampering in the certificate otherwise he ought to have reported the matter to the respondent No.4. After the issuance of marks certificate and securing of admission in First year M.B.B.S. class, convincing evidence of the alleged tampering of marks was required before the respondent took the drastic decision of cancelling petitioner's admission, which decision was bound to stigmatise the prospects of petitioner's career for all times to come. The entire finding of respondent No. 4 regarding tampering of the marks certificate is based upon the solitary circumstance that the certificate was tampered after issuance. It cannot be said to be of conclusive nature compatible only with the tampering of marks certificate by the petitioner, particularly when the certificate was issued showing 677 marks and placing in Grade `B' nor there was anything on record to show that the petitioner had tampered with the marks. It is common ground that the proceedings taken against the petitioner in respect of forgery alleged to have been committed by him are in the nature of quasi--judicial proceedings, and as such in a proper case, orders passed as a result of the said proceedings would be liable to be challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is also common ground that this Court would be justified in quashing the order as it is not based on any evidence at all. An order passed by a Tribunal holding a quasi--judicial enquiry is an order which is erroneous on the face of it and as such is liable to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its high prerogative jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article

199. It appears that the petitioner has passed his Intermediate and Secondary Examination m May 1984, and secured admission in First Year M.B.B.S. Class in the Year 1985, it has been conceded that there is no intention to disturb his career under the present circumstances. In our opinion, there was absolutely no material before the respondents Nos. 3 and 1 to come to the conclusion that any forgery or tampering was done by the petitioner. The respondents have thus taken the impugned decision or action causing substantial injure- to the petitioner without having any direct or circumstantial, evidence before them in support' of that decision. The orders passed by the respondent No.1 on 27-11-1985 and cancelling the admission are, therefore, illegal and unjust and should be quashed. We accordingly allow this petition and quash the impugned order issued by the respondent No.1 on 27/30th November, 1985 (Annexure E) cancelling the admission of the Petitioner in First Year M.B.B.S. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their on costs. H.B.T./W-44/K. Petition allowed.