P L D 2000 Lahore 344 (PLP)

This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No.26232 of 1997 and No. 12863 of 1999 as their subject‑matter is the same.

2. Facts in brief are that petitioner appeared in the LL.B. (Old Course) First Annual Examination, 1995 held in August, 1996, in terms of Gazette Notification dated 10‑5‑1997 he was declared successful securing 316 marks, on 21‑10‑1997, the respondent‑University issued another notification wherein petitioner's result was shown as later on/unfair means case and petitioner received a charge‑sheet wherein it was alleged that although petitioner had failed in Paper VII of LL.B. but he manoeuvred to have him declared as passed. As the matter was delayed by the University and the supplementary examination had come nearby this Court had allowed the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination in the afore referred paper vide its order dated 12‑12‑1997 passed in W.F. No.26232 of 1997 Subsequently petitioner did appear before the Disciplinary Committee and on 16‑3‑1999 he was informed that he had been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination for a period of three years and that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Vice‑Chancellor which too was dismissed on 21‑6‑1999 and the order was conveyed to the petitioner on 5‑7‑1999.

3. In the parawise comments submitted by the respondent‑University it has been averred that the petitioner was involved in unfair means to secure his success in Paper VII and that he had come to the Court with unclean hands and did not deserve indulgence in the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. It has further been submitted in the comments that there was manipulation of result in the Examination Branch of the University of the Punjab and two officials of the University, namely, Saifur Rehman and Muhammad Asif, (Junior Clerks) gave their statements before the University Authorities to the effect that they had changed the result of various candidates/examinees and after a‑ detailed inquiry, the respondent authorities had issued a provisional report showing the manipulation in the‑examination specifying the actual marks obtained by the petitioner and the ones posted in the result sheets. It was submitted that during the inquiry petitioner was given full opportunity of being heard and that nothing was brought in defence to prove petitioner's innocence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the grounds that the petitioner has been treated unfairly; ' that notwithstanding issuance of subsequent notification declaring petitioner's result to be later on the charge‑sheet was served on the petitioner after eleven months; that the matter was kept pending till February 1999, that the petitioner appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on 13‑10‑1998 and on 29‑1‑1999 but the final order was passed on 6‑3‑1999; that the petitioner filed an appeal' against the afore‑referred order which was dismissed on 21‑6‑1999 without any speaking order and that the statement showing the difference between the marks noted on result sheet and marks given in the award list which is R/I with the comments would indicate that some of the discrepancies were not to the benefit of the candidates and were rather to their detriment as the marks shown in the award list were less than they had actually obtained. In this connection learned counsel referred to the candidates at Serial Nos. 4, 11 and 17 of the said list. According to him the finding against the petitioner that he is responsible for the inflated marks is conjectural and he cannot be penalized for a period of three years. He relied on Samar Pervez v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another PLD 1971 Supreme Court 838 and Faiza Malik v. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1992 Supreme Court 324.

5. Mr. Muhammad Raza Farooq, learned counsel for the University of the Punjab, on the other hand defended the impugned orders by submitting that the petitioner has been found guilty by a Tribunal of Domestic Inquiry, of using unfair means to have him declared as pass in Paper‑VII of LL.B. (Old Course) and this Court may not like to interfere in the said finding sitting in the jurisdiction conferred under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Adds that only in two situations this Court could intervene. These according to him are as under:‑‑ (i) That the principles of natural justice have not been complied with, (ii) that it is a case of no evidence. ' Further contended that the very fact that the petitioner is beneficiary of the inflated marks is, a strong circumstance to connect the petitioner with the charge. In support of submissions he relied on Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice Chancellor, University of Engineering anti Technology and others (PLD :981 Supreme Caurt 464), Ifran Tamil Khan ‑v. University of Engineering 8c Technology, Lahore and others (1998 SCMR 2502) Rahat Siddiqui v‑ Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another (1977 SCMR 213) and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and another v. Muhammad Rafique (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 231). He also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court delivered in W.P. No 2866 of 1992. .

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the precedent case‑law relied upon by them.

7. The admitted position is that in the initial Gazette notification petitioner was declared successful securing 316 marks. However, in the subsequent notification issued on 21‑10‑1997 his result was shown as later on and in the charge‑sheet, received by the petitioner on 15‑12‑1997, it was A alleged that in Paper‑VII of LL.B., although the petitioner had failed but in the award list those marks were inflated to 40 declaring him as having passed. If these marks had not been added he could not have passed. He is the beneficiary of this inflation and discrepancy. This is a strong circumstance implicating the petitioner with this forger‑. In Samar Pervez v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 8381 to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted partial relief because the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that in the said case even. if. the inflated marks were deducted the candidate was still passing. In the instant case, however, admittedly if those marks are deducted petitioner fails. The relevant observation of the august Supreme Court in the afore‑referred judgment is at page 844 which is as under:‑‑ "We are inclined to think that before the Board quashes the result of a successful candidate on account of a mistake in that result, it must be shown that the mistake can be laid at the candidate's door on account of some positive action on his part, unless the mistake so detected automatically reduces his success into failure. In the case of the appellant, even by deducting the fictitiously inflated marks from his total he still gets 533 marks and a pass in the second division. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Board's decision in quashing the appellant's result cannot be upheld as legally correct." In Faiza Malik v. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 324) the candidate was the direct beneficiary of the inflation of marks and the moot point before the Hon'ble Court was with regard to the liability of the candidate in absence of the direct evidence and the Court was of the view that:‑‑ "the answer would depend upon the circumstances of each case. If he or she till the end tries to prevent the discovery of the real culprit who by the time that case comes to the Court would be known; or she on account of her being beneficiary and/or those who are close to the student being themselves culprit, do not come forward to own the responsibility, the presumption if raised in such circumstances against the student on the ground of her being the main culprit/beneficiary, would be justified." While distinguishing the case Samar Pervez v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another PLD 1971 Supreme Court 838 the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the confessional statement of the father of the candidate who appeared before it and absolved the candidate of the liability and at page 329 held as under:‑‑ "However, it can be safely said that the law can be advanced further from the stage of Samar Pervez namely, that if either the student or the concerned relation or friend comes forward and takes the responsibility of having done that which is unfairly placed at the door of the student the latter might on proper statement, a convincing one, be absolved of the responsibility." The afore‑referred facts indicate that the said case is also of no help to the petitioner.

8. At no stage the petitioner ever contested that he had secured 36 marks in Paper‑VII of LL.B. The inflation of marks in the award list which was reflected in the initial Gazette notification declaring him having passed in the said paper was obviously the result of tampering and petitioner being the beneficiary the unavoidable inference would be that he is involved in the said fraud and forgery. In Ifran Jamil Khan v. University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and others (1998 SCMR 2502) the forgery and tampering of result was detected after almost three years. Not only the result was quashed but his "sequent admission in the University of Engineering and Technology was also cancelled. Action was challenged in the High Court and it was inter alia contended that the candidate was condemned unheard and that there was no evidence to incriminate the candidate with the alleged inflation of marks and forgery of result card. The arguments were repelled and the writ petition was dismissed with the following observation. as quoted in the Supreme Court judgment at page 2507:‑‑ "The petitioners are beneficiaries of the forged improvements. Should such petitioners be allowed any relief in exercise of the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution ? The answer is clearly no." While upholding the judgment of the High Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at page 2513, as under:‑‑ "In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as observed, we are of the view that the impugned action against the petitioner is not liable to be set aside on the ground that no show‑cause notice had been issued to him or inquiry held before the impugned action was taken. The fact that the result, card (showing inflated marks) has so far not been cancelled by the University of Punjab is also of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as University of Punjab had informed the University of Engineering and Technology that petitioner's result card shows inflated marks which had not been obtained by him and on the basis of such misleading result card, the University of Engineering and Technology was competent to expel the petitioner from the University of Engineering and Technology." On the contrary in the instant case petitioner was issued show‑cause notice by the University Authorities, he was fully heard and he even availed his right of appeal as well.

9. In view of what has been discussed above I do not see any merit in both the cases i.e. W.P. No.26232 of 1997 and W.P. No.12863 of 1999 which are hereby dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑5/L Petitions dismissed.