1999SCMR1158 (PLP)

After dismissal of her Intra-Court Appeal as stated, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed being time-barred vide letter dated 3-3-1997. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.8425 of 1997 with the following prayer:- "

this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare the Letter No.759/ST-III dated 11-3-1996 issued by the respondent No.l and letter dated 9-4-1996 issued by the respondent No.2 as illegal, unwarranted and void and against principle of natural justice. Pending the disposal of this petition the petitioner may be allowed to continue her studies with the respondent No.3 in order to save her precious time till the disposal of writ petition."

6. A learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the writ petition being barred by the principle of res judicata, inter alia, with the following observations:- "The observations of the appellate bench are to the effect 'she may seek remedy independently against the same as provided under law'. If the principle of res judicata did not permit second challenge then it is not correct to say that in terms of the observations of the appellate Bench the petitioner is entitled to call in question of the action taken by the Board. It is clear that in the previous petition both the actions, one taken by the Board and the consequential one taken by the Principal of the Medical College had been considered and upheld. (Underlining is ours by way of emphasis).

7. Mr. Ahmed Awais, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that in terms of the observations made in Intra-Court Appeal No.37 of 1997, the petitioner could independently challenge the legality of the proceedings after availing of departmental appeal against the decision of the Discipline Committee which in any case, was passed ex parte.

8. He further argued that the petitioner admittedly secured 658/1100 marks, therefore, there was no justification for quashing her entire results, inasmuch as, she was not guilty of using any unfair means during the course of examination.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-Board and find no merit in the pleas raised by the former. A bare perusal of rule 8(viii) of Chapter 6 of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, shows that if a candidate is found guilty of forging, mutilating, altering, erasing or otherwise tampering with any document connected with an examination or making undue use of such document or abetting in the commission of such offences", he shall be disqualified from passing that examination and from appearing in two immediately following examinations. Similarly, rule 14 of Chapter 5 of the Calendar, confers powers on the Board to quash the result of a candidate at any time after it has been declared. The said rule reads thus;

"

14. The Board shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate at any time after it has been declared: (1) if he has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination; or (2) if a mistake is found in his result; or (3) if it is found that he was not eligible to appear in the examination; or (4) for any others reason that may be determined by the Board; Provided that if in quashing the result of a candidate under (2) and (3) above, the Board declares a candidate as 'failed' who was previously declared to have passed, in an examination, the Board may, after considering the circumstances of the case, take such action as it may deem necessary to give to the candidate the benefit of any privilege that he may have acquired by studying in the next higher class in a recognized institution or taking an examination conducted by the Board. Provided further that no result of any candidate will be quashed without issuing a show-cause notice to the candidate and giving him an opportunity to defend himself."

10. The case of Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. Lahore (PLD 1971 SC 838), does not advance the case of the petitioner. In the precedent case it was held that Tribunal like University or a Secondary Board of Education albeit in domestic inquiry was free from fetters and formalities of judicial trial, nevertheless, not entitled to deprive individual of his valuable rights and privileges on mere conjectural grounds. In the said case, the appellant therein was found to have obtained admission in Medical College by submitting false result-sheet, inasmuch as, he obtained 533 marks and was placed in second division, was shown in the gazette result to have secured 643 marks and placed in the first division. The Board, presuming that inflation of masks must have been at the instance of the candidate himself, disqualified him from appearing at seven examinations including one in which he had already passed and declared successful. This Court held that the Board's decision in quashing candidate's result was illegal under rule 18 Chapter 5 of the Calendar, 1962-65 of Intermediate and Secondary Education. In the instant case, according to the gazette published by the Board, the Petitioner secured 658/1100 mark but she, with the connivance of the officials of the Board, succeeded in enhancing the marks from 658 to 818 by mutilating, erasing and forging the figures of the marks in the result-sheet. A thorough inquiry was conducted into the whole affair. The petitioner failed to join the proceedings before the Discipline Committee and also failed to avail of the opportunity of personal hearing provided to her. She did not even bother to file reply to the charge-sheet. The official concerned was also proceeded against as stated in the preceding paragraphs. It is not a case comparable to Samar Pervaiz (supra) where the decision of the Board was based on mere conjectures without taking the officials concerned to task. Here, the respondent-Board's decision rests not on suspicion but on material, authenticity of which is not challenged by the petitioner. Moreover, presumption of regularity is attached to all official acts and it is not the case of the petitioner that any of the respondents was inimically disposed towards her or that the impugned actions suffered from mala fides.

11. Be that as it may, it is proved on record that the petitioner used a result card, which obviously was a document connected with an examination in terms of rule 8 (viii) of Chapter 6 of the Calendar of the Board. The petitioner has also been disqualified by the Board for three examinations under rule 6.8(iv) including the disputed second annual examination held in 1990. This circumstance alone renders the result of the said examination to the extent of petitioner liable to be quashed by the Board under the aforesaid rule.

12. Looked at from whatever angle the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in these proceedings.

13. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T.A/112/S Petition dismissed.