P L D 1975 Lahore 257 (PLP)

The case of Rahat Siddiqi, petitioner herein, is that he appeared in the Secondary School Certificate (Annual) Examination held in the year 1972 by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, under Roll No. 27514. In the Result Gazette he was shown to have secured 565 marks, and when he received the Detailed Marks Certificate, he was stunned to observe, that he had secured only 45/100 and 54/100 marks in Social Studies and Physics papers, respectively, whereas according to his expectations he should have obtained much more marks. Upon this, he moved an application to the Board authorities, after depositing the requisite fee of Rs. 50.00, with the prayer that the petitioner's answer books of the aforesaid two papers be got re-checked. Despite reminders in this behalf, the petitioner did not hear anything till the 20th of October 1972 when the Controller of Examinations served the petitioner with a charge-sheet, alleging that he had induced the Examiner in Social Studies Paper and got his marks enhanced from forty-five to seventy, which act was an offence under rule 8(iv) of the Rules relating to punishment .for use of Unfair Means in Examinations of the Board. By means of ' an application dated the 30th of October 1972, the petitioner required the Board authorities to supply him "all possible - evidence" in - their possession to enable him to submit his reply to the charge-sheet, but again nothing was heard by him until - 15th November 1972 when he was required to appear before the Discipline Committee of the Board on the 21st of November 1972. The petitioner put in another application dated .the 18th of November 1972 before the Controller of Examinations with the request that he should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer before the Discipline Committee. This- request of the petitioner went by the board and he was, therefore, directed to appear before the Discipline Committee on the 28th of November 1972. Yet another. application was put in by the petitioner on the 27th of November 1972 for supply of the' data on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued to him. The petitioner appeared before the Discipline Committee on the 9th' of December 1972 and despite his request for inspection of- the documents which were to be used against him he was not allowed to do so. The petitioner was consequently informed by a letter dated the 15th of December 1972 that the case of unfair -means had been decided against him and he had been disqualified from passing the Secondary School Certificate (Annual) Examination, 1972, and immediately following three examinations, i.e., Supplementary 1972, Annual and Supplementary 1973. 1 The petitioner filed an appeal against this decision on the 28th of December 1972. The "Jury of Appeal" after hearing the petitioner, rejected his appeal, which decision was conveyed to him by means. of a letter, dated the 22nd of February 1973. On the 23rd of February 1973, the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause why his result against Roll No. 27514 of the Secondary School Certificate (Annual) Examination 1972 be not quashed under rule 6.18 of the Board's Rules. The petitioner has, through this petition, challenged the two orders dated the 22nd and 23rd of February 1973. .

2. When the petition came up for hearing before me on the, 6th of March 1973, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity to represent his case and also that he was not informed of the acts which were made basis of the charge-sheet. I, therefore, directed the respondents to submit their comments. After receipt of the report, the petition was admitted to full hearing on the 8th of May 1973 to examine the .questions (a) whether the order passed under rule 8(iv) was justified in view of the decision of the High Court in Ghulam Haider v. Discipline Committee, Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore and another P L D 1971 Lah. 962; and (b) whether the petitioner could be held liable when the Sub-Examiner and the Head-Examiner had not been found guilty, as alleged by the petitioner.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the. parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client was not guilty of any offence within the meaning of rules of the Board and, at any rate, the Board authorities had not, at any stage of the proceedings, disclosed to the petitioner the precise nature of the offence of which he was alleged to be guilty. The case of the respondents is that the result of the petitioner was declared on the basis of the original Award Lists, wherein he was shown to have obtained forty-five marks in Social Studies. But, when he applied for re-checking of his answer-books of Physics and Social Studies papers, it was found that the petitioner's marks' on the answer-book of Social Studies paper were inflated from forty-five to seventy, and though the original Award List as well as its counterfoil- mentioning forty-five marks had not been cancelled, revised Award List and its counterfoil duly -signed by the Sub-Examiner and the Head-Examiner mentioned seventy marks. Since the original Award List had not been cancelled either by the Sub-Examiner or the Head-Examiner, the Controller of Examinations required the Sub-Examiner, namely, Muhammad Siddique, Teacher, C. D. Islamia High School, Miangri, P/O Nur Kot, District Sialkot, to explain the circumstances under which the irregularity of undue increase in the marks on the petitioner's answer book of Social Studies paper was committed by. him. He, after making scrutiny of the relevant record, made the following statement before the Controller of Examinations on the 26th of August 1972 :- "With reference to your letter No. 350, dated the 12th August 1972, I respectfully submit that today dated the 16th August 1972, I attended the office and carefully inspected the answer book of Social Studies, relevant award list, revised award list,, counterfoil, revised counterfoil and all other record relating to the candidate with Roll No. 27514, and I present the following report a- . I had checked the entire answer books and had sent the award list to the Head Examiner Haji. Muhammad Ramzan, Headmaster, Government High School, Sheikhupura.-One day Haji Sahib suddenly sent for me at Sheikhupura and asked me to revise the answer book of Roll No. 27514, showing the same to me and saying that one question had not been seen and that two marks had erroneously been inserted in the column of that question. I thought that it was essential for me to act upon the direction of the Head Examiner. Consequently, I revised the answer book and re-evaluated it. So far as question No. 9 is concerned, it seems to me now that the above-named Head Examiner had changed the sheet; that he had destroyed the sheet whereupon I had inserted two marks; and that in place of it, he had got ,written another sheet by the candidate, upon which, question No. 9 had been solved, and attached it with the answer book; whereupon he got inserted thirteen marks by me. The-revised award list and revised counterfoil were prepared by me on the instructions of the Head Examiner and I had put my initials on the cuttings in the answer book'." (Note.=The statement was in Urdu. I hake translated it into English). When the Head Examiner, namely, Haji Muhammad Ramzan, Headmaster, Government High School, Sheikhupura, was required to make his position clear, he stated as follows :- "He had already made all the entries and cuttings in respect of Roll No. 27514. The revised award was sent on account of mistake in the total." It was after this enquiry by the Controller of Examinations who found complicity of all the three, namely, the petitioner, the Sub-Examiner and the Head Examiner, that the charge-sheet dated the 20th of October 1972 was served on the petitioner. The petitioner's allegation that he was not informed of the true nature of the charges has been denied by the respondent. It was stated in the report: "All the evidences mentioned in preceding para. were got confronted by the petitioner and he when appearing before the Discipline Committee did not say anything more except 'My previous statement be deemed sufficient'. It is absolutely wrong that the petitioner requested the Discipline Committee for the production of the witnesses in his support. Had he made such request it would have been met." Whereas the petitioner denied any document having been shown to him, he has made an implied admission in paragraph 14 of the writ petition,, relevant part of which reads as follows :- "On the insistence of the petitioner, it was told that during re-checking on the application of the petitioner it transpired that there was difference in the award list and answer book of the subject of the Social Studies. The award` list was showing 45 marks whereas the total in the Answer =Book was shown

70. On the basis of this difference the matter was referred by the respondent No. 1 to the Sub-Examiner who reported that some sheet has been replaced while it was in possession of the Head Examiner, and on the asking of the petitioner it was told that no allegation has been reported by the Sub-Examiner for inducement. The petitioner asked whether there was any material or evidence against the petitioner apart from the above-mentioned matter the petitioner was told that there `was none." It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the petitioner had been informed of the precise nature of the allegation against him. The Discipline Com mittee had passed a self-speaking order which further shows that they had recorded necessary evidence. ' In the course of their order, they observed as follows :- "The H. E. admits that he summoned the S. E. to make corrections of mistakes committed by him but asserts that all entries on the script had already been made by the S. E. but the total was wrong, so revised award was submitted. H. E. also admits having submitted the original award to office before checking 71 % of scripts as required which is against the rules. Here H. E.'s position becomes untenable and his whole statement unreliable." The underlined* portions of the above extract from the order clearly indicate that the Discipline Committee undertook an enquiry before returning its final verdict. '

4. There is another aspect of the case. The petitioner had made a request before the "Jury of Appeal" that his answer book in Social Studies be got re-assessed. In order to satisfy the petitioner, the "Jury of Appeal" granted, his request- and got his answer book re-marked by an Examiner other than the one who had marked the script in the first instance. `The second Examiner awarded him forty-eight marks as against forty-five originally awarded to him. But these forty-eight marks included thirteen marks which were awarded for question No. 9 which was attempted on a continuation-sheet which was alleged to have been added to the answer book by the petitioner in collusion with the Head. Examiner under whose directions the Sub-Examiner revised the petitioner's answer book. The case of the Sub-Examiner is that the Head Examiner destroyed the original continuation-sheet on which the petitioner had attempted question No. 9 and was awarded two marks, and instead a new continuation sheet, on which the petitioner bad attempted the same question, was added to the answer book, and thirteen marks were now got awarded from him. In the circumstances, the petitioner would have obtained only thirty-seven marks at the bands of the Examiner who re-assessed his answer book under the orders of the "Jury of Appeal" had the original continuation-sheet not been replaced by the one which now forms part of his answer book.' The "Jury of Appeal", therefore, rightly concluded that this continuation-sheet was either written by the candidate after approaching the Head Examiner who added the continuation-sheet in question to the answer book at a later stage having removed the first sheet in which question No. 9 was attempted by the candidate and the Sub-Examiner had awarded 2 marks for that attempt". They, after hearing the petitioner, dismissed his appeal: These facts show that full opportunity bad been afforded to the petitioner to defend himself, although as held in University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad P L D 1965 S C 90 it was not incumbent upon the Board authorities to embark upon a detailed enquiry in the matter. In this respect, the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are worth special mention : - "Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross -examining the witnesses against him or-even to serve a formal charge- sheet upon him."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Ghulam Haider v. Discipline Committee, Board of intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore, and another P L D 1971 Lah. 952 to contend that once the result of the petitioner's Secondary School Certificate (Annual) Examination, 1972 had been announced by the Board authorities and he was declared to have been successful, it was not competent for them to have disqualified him from passing the Paid examination. Learned counsel, while raising this argument, completely lost sight of the following endorsement on the "Result Gazette" itself :- "An entry appearing 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." The entries in the "Result Gazette" are thus not clothed with unfettered sanctity. Moreover, the facts of Ghulam Haider's case, relied upon by the learned counsel are distinguishable from this of the one in hand. Ghulam Haider had filed two 'admission, forms for taking Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1966. In the first form he had given correct particulars as to his age etc., whereas in the second form he made mis-statements. On the first form he was issued Roll No. 26203 and on the second form Roll No. 26329. Under Roll No. 26203 he appeared in all the subjects while under Roll No. 26329 he appeared only in three papers. His result under Roll No. 26203 was announced some where in July 1960 and he was declared to- have passed the Examination. On a complaint by one Ghulam Qadir, he was served with a charge-sheet dated the 3rd of December 1966 under' rule 7(r') printed at page 188 of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore (1962-64) and (1963-65). Under rule 7(r') a candidate could be disqualified from passing the relevant examination and from appearing in the immediately following examination (annual or supplementary), if- he was found guilty of making false representation in his admission form or any other document connected with the examination. There was admittedly no allegation against Ghulam Haider that he had made any false representation in his first admission form on which. Roll No. 26203 was issued. So far as the second admission form was concerned, 'the entries therein could not in any way be connected with the Examination which the petitioner had passed, under Roll No. 26203 as he had desisted from appearing in all the papers under Roll No. 26329 which was issued on the second form. Moreover, he did not claim any benefit on the basis of the second form or the roll number issued against the same. Strictly speaking, rule 7(r') was not attracted to his case. The facts of the petitioner's case are different. The allegation against him was that he had induced the Sub-Examiner and the Head Examiner to award him more marks than he was actually entitled to. This act of inducement was no doubt done at a time when the result had not been declared. The petitioner claimed benefit. after the declaration of his result and it was only then that the Board authorities came to know of the entire game played by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the result having already been declared all that the Board authorities could do was either to have given effect to the petitioner's plea that he was entitled to seventy marks instead of forty-five in the Social Studies paper or to refuse his request, but no further action - of whatever kind could be taken against him. This does not appear to be the intention of the rule-making authority. In a case of the present nature, the Board authorities would be competent to initiate action under rule 8 even after the declaration of the result. Learned counsel while raising this argument also appears to have overlooked rule 18 under which the Board has the "power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared if he has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination". Rule 18 has been couched in wide terms, and it cannot be attributed to the rule-making authority that it was conscious of only one situation, viz., where although a disqualification order has been passed before declaration . of the result by a competent authority, yet somehow or the other the result has been declared. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, rule 18 would come into play only in such a situation. This does not appear to be correct, because if such an interpretation is placed on rule 18 it would frustrate the very purpose of the rule itself whereunder the Board has been empowered to quash an already declared result, but after the disqualification order has come into existence. Moreover, in none' of the rules, which provide for punishments for use of unfair means in examinations of the Board, it has been specifically laid down that the power could be exercised only before the declaration of. the result of the candidate alleged to be guilty of an offence., The rules are to be read ns, they are, neither adding anything to the same nor omitting any of their part. It would be anomalous to give effect to the contention of the petitioner's counsel that although under rule 8(iv) a candidate can be debarred from appearing in three immediately following examinations even after the result is declared, yet once it has been done, the Board which is competent for debarring a candidate from appearing in as many as three immediately following examinations, suddenly becomes powerless to disqualify that candidate from passing the very examination in which he has, in, fact, been found to be guilty of employing unfair means. If a person is disqualified from passing a particular examination, the question of declaration of his result in that ' event, would not arise, and if the candidate can manoeuvre otherwise, such declaration of his result being void ab initio would be. non-existent in the eyes of law, W any proceeding to quash the same would be unnecessary and futile. I am,- therefore, of the opinion that even after the declaration of the result of the petitioner, it was competent for the Board authorities to have initiated action against him under rule 8(iv).

6. Learned counsel lastly argued that action of the Board authorities was mala fide inasmuch as the petitioner was duly punished under rule 8(iv) and disqualified from four examinations, but the Sub-Examiner and Head Examiner both escaped all punishment. The contention is factually incorrect. The Discipline Committee, which awarded the punishment in question on the petitioner simultaneously recommended in the same order that "both S. E. and H. E. be debarred from any appointment in future". This recommendation of the Discipline Committee was, accepted, and the Chairman' of he Board by his order dated the 18th of December 1972 debarred "for ever" both the Sub-Examiner and the Head Examiner "from getting any work of the Board". There is thus no substance in this contention'.

7. On the above view of the matter, no exception can validly be taken to the order dated the 9th of December 1972 of the Discipline Committee whereby the petitioner was disqualified for four Examinations, and that dated the 20th of February 1973, whereby the "Jury of Appeal" dismissed the petitioner's appeal.

8. The petitioner has also challenged the notice dated the 23rd of February 1972 served upon him by the Controller of Examinations to show cause when his result against Roll No. 21514 of the Secondary School Certificate (Annual) Examination, 1972 be not quashed. Rule 6.18 of the Board's Rules empowers the Board to quash the result of a candidate, after it has been declared, if he has been disqualified for using unfair means in the Examination. The action of the Board is unexceptionable.

9. I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed