2001 PLP 1631 (CLC)

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned verification certificate was sent to the respondents to his employer without issuing any show‑cause notice to the petitioner and without providing personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, same is hit by the principle of natural justice. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:‑‑ Dil Bahadur Khan's case 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1464(b); Ms. Aneesa Rehman's case 1994 SCMR 2232 and Fouzia Ahmad's case 1999 ' PLC (C.S.) 1194. He further submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority as the same was passed in violation of the procedure prescribed by the respondent under their regulations. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgment‑‑ Muhammad Malook's case 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1391. He further, submits that respondents have only authority to take action against the petitioner within three years as is evident' from regulation of the respondents published in Volume 2 of the regulation of the University of the Punjab for the year 1977‑78 in Chapter VI. He further, submits that respondents had taken action against the petitioner after 5 years. Therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that principle of locus potentiae is attracted in all respects.

3. Learned Legal Advisor of the respondents submits that petitioner did not appear in the B.A. 2nd Annual Examination, 1993 held by the respondents under Roll No.21966. Adeel Anjum son of Aziz‑ur‑Rehman appeared in the B.A. 2nd Annual Examination, 1993 held by the respondents under Roll No.21966 as Ex‑student of the Government Islamia College, Gujranwala who first time appeared in B.A. Annual Examination, 1993 under Roll No.34728 as regular student of Government Islamia College, Gujranwala and his result was declared as fail in English language as the copy of the same is attached as Annexure "I/I‑A" with the report and parawise comments. He further submits that after inquiry it was found that the name of Mushtaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Bashir had been inserted in place of the real candidate Adeel Anjum son of Aziz‑ur‑Rehman leaving the column for registered No. blank and giving the District of Mushtaq Ahmad as Muzaffarabad in place of Government Islamia College, Gujranwala. He further submits that 2nd Annual Examination was held by the respondents in the month of March and April, 1994 when the petitioner was accompanying the Speaker of the Assembly of A.J.K. as his P.R.O. had withdrawn T.A./D.A. Rs.1,374 for the period between 27th March. 1994 to First May 1994 as is evident from Annexure "11" He further submits that the cutlist for the examination was prepared by the respondents District wise and the pages of the cutlist for Gujranwala District in the result sheet are from pages 602 to 611 which prove the .culpability of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner had to appear in the examination held by the respondents after obtaining N.O.C. of the University of A.J.K. in whose jurisdiction the petitioner was resided. The petitioner did not obtain N.O.C. and did not submit admission form to appear in the said Examination. He further submits that petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands and wanted benefit of the forgery as is evident from the results statements. Therefore, question of providing personal hearing or issuing charge‑sheet does not arise. He further submits that condition o: 3 years is also not applicable m case of petitioner as the petitioner did not appear in the said examination. In support of his contention he relied upon Mansab Ali's case PLD 1971 SC 124.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. The cutlist clearly reveals that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the list of the students who appeared from the District Gujranwala. The word Gujranwala was crossed and word Muzaffarabad A.J.K. was inserted in writing by hand. The peculiar feature of the case is that no enmity whatsoever has been alleged against the respondents by the petitioner. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by this Court in Saeed Nawaz's case PLD 1981 Lah.

371. It is also settled proposition of law that no obligation to offer an opportunity of being heard arises where the authority simply seeks to correct mistake viz. to cancel an earlier declaration that the petitioner has passed the examination which was wrong. He did not appear in the said examination or where the student secured a certificate through fraudulent device. I am fortified' by the reported judgments Sureshi v. Berhampur University AIR 1987 Orissa 38 and UPJDAC v. Nandwani (1990) 4 SCC

633. It is also settled principle of law that general allegations of mala .fides are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Saeed Ahmad Khan's case PLD 1974 SC

151. Respondents had produced the original record in Court alongwith report and parawise comments which reveals that the petitioner did not appear in the said examination. It is pertinent to mention here that original record shows the aforesaid position. I have seen the aforesaid original documents. Therefore, there is no justification to doubt the authenticity. This brings the case where the evidence of unfair means is perfectly plain and transparent. Petitioner is beneficiary of the change in the aforesaid documents. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ Akhtar Ali's case 1979 SCMR 549 and Haider Ali's case 1999 YLR 1243. which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme in Constitutional Petition No.475/L 1999 Suleman Riaz v. B.I.S.E. 1999 YLR 1229 and Amjad Yasin's case 1999 SCMR 2640. The aforesaid documents reveal that petitiog&Ldid not appear in the said examination as alleged by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the action of respondents is valid. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ Farrukh‑ud‑Din's case PLD 2000 Kar. 154 and Amjad Yasin's case 1999 SCMR 2604. The principle of locus potentiae is not attracted in the present case as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jalal‑ud‑Din's case PLD 1992 SC 207 and Rehat Siddiqui's case PLD 1975 Lah. 257 and 1977 SCMR

213. It is also settled principle of law that lapse of time does not sanctify the action based on fraud and misrepresentation. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Samar Pervaiz's case PLD 1971 SC

838. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that action of the respondents is in violation of e their rules and regulations. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by 'the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case 1984 SCMR

433. After perusing the original record I have come to the conclusion that petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner on the well‑known principle that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments: ‑‑ Abdur Rashid's case 1969 SCMR 141; Ghulam Mustafa's case 1983 SCMR 196; Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 and G.M. Malik's case 1990 CLC 1783. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law and have no relevancy to resolve the present controversy. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that students cannot be in a position to use unfair means in the examination without active support of supervisory staff examiners, employees of Board and Universities. Since the creation of Pakistan there are only few instances where supervisory staff, examiners or employees of Boards and Universities were convicted and sentenced. In the interest of justice and fairplay let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab to hold inquiry as to how it happened that a bogus certificate was issued on behalf of the University and was placed in the hands of the petitioner. This shows that there are some loopholes in the system of examination conducted by the University or record maintained by the University which need to be immediately plugged to attach respectable status to the academic certificates issued by the University. If need be, the University can recourse to criminal or disciplinary action, if any of its employee is found to be guilty in the preparation or issuance of this bogus certificate or other certificates of its kind. The Vice‑Chancellor of the University shall after holding comprehensive and detailed inquiry send his finding to the Additional Registrar (Judl.) of this Court so that if necessary action may be initiated to uphold the sanctity of the Educational Institutions in the Country. H.B.T./M‑513/L Petition dismissed.