SCMR 1998

1998 PLP 939 (SCMR)

AMER SIDDIQ MALIK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.353 of 1995, decided on 7th November, 1995.
Honorable Judges
Ajmal Mian and Fazal llahi Khan, JJ,
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1998 PLP 939 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Ajmal Mian and Fazal llahi Khan, JJ,
Parties AMER SIDDIQ MALIK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Educational institution‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 939 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 939 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal llahi Khan, JJ,.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 939 (SCMR) (AMER SIDDIQ MALIK ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Educational institution‑

Representation

  • Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 7th November, 1995.
  • 3. In support of the above petition, Hafiz S.A. Rahman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, has contended that there was no reliable evidence on record to indicate that factually the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means. According to him, this fact has even been admitted in the impugned order by the learned Judge in Chambers. He has placed a copy of technical opinion of the Office of the Director Technical, Federal Investigating Agency, Islamabad, in which the following opinion appears in respect of the present petitioner:--

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the order dated 15‑5‑1995 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in Writ Petition No.591 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of petitioner's result of Part II of Higher Secondary School Certificate on the ground of using unfair means in the examination hall‑‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition before High Court against cancellation of his result was dismissed ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Technical opinion of Director Technical, Federal Investigation Agency alongwith evidence on record indicated that Disciplinary Committee was justified in inferring the factum that unfair means were used by petitioner‑‑‑Such question being question of fact was within the competence of Disciplinary Committee and in absence of any glaring illegality, High Court rightly did not interfere in the matter‑‑‑Disciplinary Committee or Appellate Forum were within their competence to decide question of quantum of punishment to be awarded to the guilty‑‑‑Petitioner's result of the examination having been cancelled and he having been allowed to appear in Annual Examination of 1995, he could not be made to appear in Part I of the examination as well‑‑‑Respondent was expected to take notice of such fact of petitioner's apprehension as correct‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

AJMAL MIAN, J.

This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 15-5-1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.591 of 1995 against the notification dated 20-2-1995 cancelling the petitioner's result of Part II of the Higher Secondary School Certificate (H.S.S.C.) Annual Examination, 1994, on the ground of using unfair means in the examination hall, dismissing the same. 2 - The brief facts are that the petitioner appeared in the above annual examination in F.Sc. (Pre-medical Group) under Roll No.530165. His result was withheld by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad, on account of using unfair means. However, pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court in earlier Writ Petition No.1280 of 1994, it was declared provisionally. It seems that after the above declaration of the result, the Board initiated action against the petitioner, which culminated in issuance of aforesaid Notification dated 20-2-1995. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition, which has been dismissed through the impugned order. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above petition, Hafiz S.A. Rahman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, has contended that there was no reliable evidence on record to indicate that factually the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means. According to him, this fact has even been admitted in the impugned order by the learned Judge in Chambers. He has placed a copy of technical opinion of the Office of the Director Technical, Federal Investigating Agency, Islamabad, in which the following opinion appears in respect of the present petitioner:-- "Roll No.530165. Chemistry:--Sheet No 131820. The original writings, on pages Nos.3, 6, 11, 15, 17 to 19 have been chemically erased and other writings written thereafter on these pages. No sings of chemical or mechanical erasures are present on the following answer sheets:-- Urdu, Sheet No.134289, English, Sheet No.138405, Pak. Studies, Sheet No.178072. "

4. On -the basis of the above report, in our view, Disciplinary Committee was justified in inferring the factum that unfair means were used by the petitioner. Generally candidates cancel the answers of the questions which they find (while in the examination hall) are not correct and re-write instead of erasing and then re-writing so many pages. Even otherwise, this was a question of fact within the competence of the Disciplinary Committee and in the absence of any glaring illegality, the High Court could not have interfered with the above finding.

5. Then it was urged by Mr. Rahman that the Disciplinary Committee was not justified in canceling the entire result of Part II of H.S.S.C. Examination except the result of one paper, namely, Chemistry, which was involved, should have been cancelled.

6. This contention is also not tenable as it was for the disciplinary committee or the appellate forum to decide the question of quantum of punishment to be awarded. '

7. It was lastly urged that though under the aforesaid Notification dated 20-2-1995 the petitioner's result of Part II of the above examination has been cancelled and he has been allowed to appear in the Annual Examination of 1995, respondent No.1 is asking the petitioner to appear in Part I of the examination as well.

8. If that is so, it seems to be contrary to the above notification. We have no reason to hold that respondent No.1 will not take notice of the above fact if it is brought to its notice. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused. A.A./A-1380/S Leave refused.