2001 PLP 1765 (CLC)

Rehat Siddiqui's case PLD 1975 Lah. 257, Rehat Siddiqui's case 77 SCMR 213 and Jalal‑ud‑Din's case PLD 1992 SC 207 ref. (e) Educational institutions‑‑‑ --‑Examination‑‑‑Forged marks sheet‑‑‑Authorities withheld the result of the candidate‑‑‑Candidate denied any manipulation in the admission form‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Where the candidate did not implead any person who was responsible to make that forgery, the candidate was held to be responsible of same as he was the beneficiary of the forgery‑‑‑Candidate, in the present the failed to point out any violation of rules committed by the Authorities‑‑‑Order passed by the Authorities was neither illegal nor there was any infirmity‑‑‑High Court upheld the order passed by the Authorities in circumstances. Ahmad Latif Qureshis case PLD 1994 Lah. 3 distinguished. Akhtar Ali's case 1979 SCMR 549 and Azhar Ali's case PLD 1971 Lah. 972 and Ali Mir's case 1984 SCMR 433 ref. Ghulam Farid Sanotra for Appellant. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 18527 of 2000 with the lowing prayer:‑‑ "In view of above submissions it is respectfully prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to release the actual and factual result of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the tampering and issuance of result card declaring the petitioner fully fail may kindly be declared ineffective and inoperative on the rights of the petitioner. " Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through the impugned judgment, dated 19‑1‑2001. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant submitted his admission form to appear only in English and Biology Supplementary Examination, 1999 held by the respondent admission form was accepted by the respondents and Roll Number was also issued by the respondents. Therefore, action of the respondents is without lawful authority to withhold the result of the appellant. He further submits that principle of locus potentiae is attracted in all respects as the respondent did not inform the appellant that appellant was not eligible to appear in the said examination. He further submits that learned single Judge was erred in law to rely upon Annexures R‑III and R‑IV submitted by the respondents alongwith the report and parawise comments in the aforesaid writ petition. He further submits that appellant is penalised by the inaction of the respondents which is not in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon Ahmad Latif Qureshi s case PLD 1994 Lah. 3.

2. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record ourselves. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned order to resolve the control between the parties:- "It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner the far Federal Board has not verified the result of Part II Intermediate Examination to the respondent‑Board. He has however, contented that petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on account of inaction of Federal Board. Learned counsel is not entirely correct in submission. If the Federal Board was failing in its duty, petitioner had to compel that Board to do the needful. The Board is not a party in this petition nor any request has been in for doing so. In the circumstances, the respondent‑Board seems to be justified in holding that petitioner cannot be issued the Intermediate Certificate unless she passed the Part I examination of the respondent‑Board as well. (4) R/4 is Examination Form of the petitioner upon which the petitioner admits her signatures. The Form bears the writing that the candidate has to appear in Part I and Part II of the examination. Learned counsel contends that this writing is not in the hands of the petitioner and it is so apparent on the face of the document. His contention is that some official/clerk of the Board has overwritten these words on the documents. (5) I am afraid no conclusive finding, can be recorded for and again the allegation of forgery and mala fide, on the present record. Sup allegations otherwise require deeper investigation for which proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution are not applicable. Petitioner will have to prove the document as forged on account of mala fide, before the document can be held to be in effective, otherwise, the document stays as it is." The aforesaid operative part reveals that the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge that disputed questions of fact could not be resolved in a Constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is in accordance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younis Khan's case 1993 SCMR

618. It is also settled principle of law that general allegations of malice or mala fide are not sustainable in the eyes of law as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Saeed Ahmad Khan's case PLD 1974 SC 151 and Aman Ullah Khan's case' PLD 1990 SC 1092. It is also admitted fact that the appellant had not impleaded the Federal Board of Intermediate Secondary Education in the writ petition as well as in the I.C.A. Therefore, writ petition as well as the I.C.A. is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supremely Court in Rameez‑ul‑Haq's case PLD 1992 SC

221. It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be allowed to get the benefit of his own misdeeds; and the principle of locus poenitentiae in such circumstances is not attracted as per principle laid down by the superior Courts. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down in the following judgments:‑‑ Rehat Siddiqui's case 1975 Lah. 257; Rehat Siddiqui's case 1977 SCMR 213 and Jalal‑ud‑Din's case PLD 1992 SC

207. Learned counsel for the appellant alleged that admission form was manipulated or forged by the respondents. This fact goes against the appellant as the appellant is the beneficiary of that forgery as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Akhtar Ali's case 1979 SCMR

549. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant did not implead any person who was responsible .to make that forgery. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by this Court to Azhar Ali's case PLD 1971 Lah.

972. It is also pertinent to intention here that the learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out that the respondents acted to violation of their rules and regulation. In this view of the matter, the writ petition as well as the I.C.A. is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court to All Mir's case 1984 SCMR

433. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In view of what has been discussed above, this I.C.A. has no merits and the same is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑212/L Appeal dismissed.