1989SCMR599 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, HIGHER AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD,
| Citation | 1989SCMR599 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, HIGHER AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR599 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR599 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR599 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, HIGHER AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988.
- Q.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
November, 1988 . (On appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.P. No.215/1983, dated 7-2-1983).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Disciplinary action against petitioner, a student, for using unfair means in examination--Petitioner having been found guilty was dealt with in accordance with law--Petitioner's Constitutional petition against action taken by authority was dismissed-- Order of High Court impugned--Disciplinary Committee had rightly acted on circumstantial material and high probability--No law including that relating to evidence, prohibited such approach--No error in the impugned judgment found- Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A student against whom disciplinary action was taken on account of using unfair means in an examination, challenged the same in writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Having failed to obtain relief he has sought leave to appeal. One of the unfair means was that after recording some answers in the answer book the remaining pages were left blank; but ultimately the answer book was found to be tampered with, the seal mark of "blank", was erased on the blank sheets and further answers were rendered on those pages. After having been found guilty the petitioner was dealt with in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that there was no material to show that the petitioner was responsible for or privy, to the tampering with of the answer book; notwithstanding the fact that he alone was the beneficiary in that behalf. We do not agree with him. The Disciplinary Committee rightly acted on I the circumstantial material and high probability. No law including that relating to evidence, prohibited such an approach. After hearing the learned counsel we have not been able to find any error in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./M‑682/S Leave to appeal refused.