1999 PLP 3410 (MLD)

"I was about 17 years in old 1989 and as such I was immatured and quite ignorant about the responsibilities of the practical life. I lacked sense and wad enticed to do so."

5. It seems that the question of absence of notice is irrelevant in the circumstance. In any case there is ample material' on the record to conclude that respondent-Board made all reasonable efforts to serve the petitioner with the allegations and to call upon him to answer the same.

6. In order to appreciate the next contention of the learned counsel it is profitable to reproduce the relevant Regulations relied by the learned counsel for the parties:- (18) Chairman's Power to quash result. "The Chairman shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared and cancel the certificate according if already result issued. (i) If he/she has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination or (2) if a mistake is found in his/her result or (3) if it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination or (4) for Fraud, Forgery and Impersonation that may be determined by the Chairman: Provided that the orders of quashing the result is issued not later than four years from the date of detection of the result of the examination concerned offence mentioned 1 to 4". Regulation 10(6) reads as follows:-- "If any student regular or private, who passed any examination of the Board in any session, is found guilty of impersonation, the Board may cancel his/her diploma or certificate and take such other action as it may deem fit: Provided that if the impersonator has passed his examination from another Board, his certificate/diploma will be cancelled by the parent Board on the recommendations of the Board concerned. "

7. The collective reading of the two Regulations clearly establishes the point made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Board. Under Regulation 18 it is the Chairman, who can quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared but this power is available to the Chairman for four years from the date of detection'. Impersonation is a separate misconduct and power to deal with it vests in the Board and no period is prescribed within which this power can be exercised. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, of no consequence. I may add that there is a clear rationale underneath Regulation 10(VI). No amount of delay should be enough to cover the misdeeds of an impersonator. The law maker has, therefore, deliberately not confined the exercise of powers to a limited period as it has done in the case of the candidate under Regulation

18. I hold that the Board could have taken the action against the impersonator at any time.

8. The third argument of the learned counsel cannot be said to have been substantiated as there is no material whatsoever on the record to show that Board acted in this matter on account of sectarian and religious beliefs of the petitioner. This ground has even not been spelt out in the petition itself.

9. For all the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A-335/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.