1985 PLP 1136 (MLD)

The petitioner applied for admission in B.D.Sc. Class. Alongwith his application, he filed a certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha showing that he had got 684 marks in the F.Sc. examination held in the year, 1974. He was granted the admission. He pursued his education and has qualified in the final examination except in two papers. At this time it transpired that the certificate of the F. Sc. showing him having obtained 684 marks was bogus. He had actually got 594 marks. The College Authorities did not allow him to appear in the remaining papers. On 12-2-1983 he was issued a show cause notice by the Principal, de Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore to show cause why his admission be not cancelled on the ground that the certificate of his passing F.Sc. with 684 marks was bogus. The Controller of Examination of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha also issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 16-3-1983 saying that the petitioner had obtained duplicate certificate of his F.Sc. Examination showing 684 marks, whereas he had got 594 marks. His result was quashed by the Chairman of the Board. He was allowed to file an appeal and the Board dismissed the same on 4-5-1983. He has filed this Constitutional Petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended; firstly, that the duplicate certificate of F.Sc. showing 684 marks was issued by the Board itself and secondly, that that had been got verified by the admitting Institution that is to say de'Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore as well, therefore, the petitioner is at no fault and at the nick of time when he is about to pass his full final examination of B.Sc. , he cannot be penalised.

3. Learned counsel for the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, the College of Dentistry, Lahore and the Punjab University have appeared and from the record stated that the petitioner had appeared in the year 1974 in his F.Sc, Examination and he had obtained 594 marks. He again, appeared in the same examination in the year 1976 and got only 541 marks. The duplicate certificate obtained by him of the examination of 1974 showing to have got 684 marks is a result of malpractice and he cannot rely on the wrong basis. It is, secondly, contended that the petitioner has suppressed his result of 1976 in which he had got only 541 marks. For this suppression he was neither entitled to admission in the de'Montmorency College of Dentistry, nor, relief under the discretionary jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on this Court.

4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has referred to Muhammad Ashraf Qadri v. Principal, King Edward Medical College etc. P L D 1982 S C 131 and Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa etc. 1983 S C M R

196. He submitted that the contention that the acceptance of the petitioner's appeal against the quashment of his result by the Board did not mean that the bogus certificate showing 684 marks was approved but only that his original result with 594 marks which result had been quashed in its entirety by the Chairman, was allowed to stand. 5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is a pity that when the petitioner is at the thresh-hold of being qualified in the final examination of the B.D.Sc., his admission in the first year of the course is being annulled by the authorities on the ground that "he had obtained the admission on the basis of a false F.Sc. Certificate which showed him having got 684 marks, whereas in fact he had got 594 marks. But the fault is entirely of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not know about the marks he got in 1974 until he was issued duplicate certificate of his result showing 684 marks, is not believable because in the year. 1976 the petitioner had reappeared in the F.Sc. Examination for improving: his marks. He would have obviously known as to how many marks he had earlier got. He had not even; as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, pointed out to the admitting-authorities that he had appeared in the year 1976, nor, of course, he has stated this fact in the writ petition. This material fact of the suppression, disentitles the petitioner from relief under the Constitution. The facts in the two cases cited by the learned Assistant Advocate-General which resulted in the adverse decision to the students involved in those cases were muchless grave than in the present case because there was only misrepresentation or a wrong affidavit. In this case, the basic result of the petitioner of the examination of 1974, which showed him to have got 594 marks was shown to have got 684 marks. The admission was on competitive merit basis and the petitioner would not have got the admission on the basis of the right numbers viz. 594 marks. He deprived another eligible person from admission who would have been admitted in his place on the basis of comparative better marks. In view of the circumstances of the case and the precedents mentioned above, this petition has to be dismissed and it is so ordered but in the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. H . B . T . Petition dismissed .