P L D 1981 Lahore 244 (PLP)

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ Art. 199‑Writ petition, maintainability of‑Student petitioner's case finding him guilty of adopting unfair means at examination under consideration on appeal before Appellate Committee‑Writ petition against order holding him guilty nevertheless, held, maintain able.‑[Educational Institutions]. Anjuman‑e‑Ahmadiya v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha P L D 1966 S C 639 ; Lt.‑Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan's case P L D 1961 S C 119 and Salahuddin's case P L D 1975 S C 244 ref. (b) Calendar of Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education (Lahore)‑ ‑‑ R. 6(8)‑Annulment of examination result‑Powers of Board Result of examination notified in Gazette‑Held, can be annulled by Board if candidate disqualified for using unfair means‑[Ghulam Haider's case P L D 1971 Lah. 952 dissented from]. Rahat Siddiqui's case P L D 1975 Lah. 257 and Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore and another 1977 S C M R 213 rel. Ghulam Haider's case P L D 1971 Lah. 952 dissented from. (c) Calendar of Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education (Lahore)‑‑ ‑‑ R. 6(8) (17) read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Writ proceedings‑Objections relating to constitution and validity of special Discipline Committee neither taken in writ petition nor raised before Discipline Committee or Appellate Committee, held, cannot be permitted to be raised at argument stage of writ petition Petitioner having acquiesced in jurisdiction of Discipline Committee by not raising such objection at, time of appearing before it, cannot be permitted to raise such objection on such further ground as well Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199. (d) Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (XIII of 1976)‑ ‑‑ S. 14(6)‑Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Lahore), r. 6(17) (i) and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Maxim : Expressio unius exclusio alterius (mention of one is exclusion of another)‑Discipline Committee‑Objection as to constitution of‑Maxim : Expressio unius exclusio alterius‑Not a rule of universal application‑Objection regarding constitution of Discipline Committee and legality of action taken by such Coa:mittee‑To be examined in detail in context of facts of case and relevant rules governing formation of such Committee‑Appointment of Discipline Committee having been made by Chairman and approved by Board, Committee, held, validly constituted‑Nomenclature of Com‑' mittee either as Discipline Committee or Special Discipline Committee‑ Makes no difference,‑Provision as to Committee having to comprise two members‑Merely directory and not‑ mandatory‑No prejudice having been caused to petitioner, by appointment of three members instead. of two and petitioner on other hand having been put to advantage, objection regarding constitution of Committee and validity of proceedings, before it, held, without substance in circumstances. [Maxim‑Discipline Committee]. Chairman, Evacuee Trust f roperty Board, West Pakistan, Lahore v. Muhammad Din and another P L D 1971 Lah. 217 ; Malik Abdul Aziz v. West Pakistan Publishing Company (Private) Limited P L D 1965 Lah. 82 ; E. A. Evans's case P L D 1964 S C 536 ; Khawaja Nazir Ahmad's case A I R 1936 P C 253 ; Lt. Col. G. L. Battacharya v. The State etc. P L D 1964 S C 503 ; Khushiram Atmaram Jaisinghari's case P L D 1965 S C 453 ; Mushtaq Ahmad etc. v. The State P L D 1978 Lah. 507 ; Lt.‑Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty and others P L D 1961 S C 119 ; Broom's Legal Maxim Edn., p. 586 ; Craies on Statute Law ; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., Okara v. Industrial Court, West Pakistan, Lahore and another P L D 1966 S C 477 ; Niaz Muhammad Khan's case P L D' 1974 S C 134 and Khaista Muhammad's case P L D 1978 S C (A J & K) 118 ref. (a) Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (XIII of 1976)‑ ‑‑ S. 14(6) read with Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Lahore), r. 6(17) (i) ‑ Discipline Committee ‑ Inquiry, nature of‑Proceedings before Discipline Committee or Domestic Tribunals‑Principles of natural justice, in absence of any express words to contrary applicable to such proceedings‑Discipline Com mittee or Domestic Tribunal however, not required to treat matter as a trial or to examine witnesses in presence of accused or give him facility of cross‑examination of witnesses or even to serve a formal charge‑sheet upon accused‑Discipline Committee or Domestic Tribunal can obtain information in any way it thinks fit‑Committee or tribunal however, to afford fair and reasonable opportunity to affected person to correct, contradict or explain any relevant statement, documents or circumstance sought to be taken into consideration against him Findings of fact, in absence of any tangible proof of Committee or domestic having any prejudice against accused, held, rest exclusively in ultimate judgment of Committee or Tribunal.‑[Domestic Tribunal Discipline Committee]: University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad P L D 1965 S C 90 ; Samar Parvez's case P L D 1971 S C 838 ; Rahat.Siddiqui's case 1977 S C M R 210 and Sbaukat Ali's case 1981 S C M R 365 ref. (f ) Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Lahore)‑‑ ‑‑ R. 6(8) ‑ Amendment of examination result ‑ Circumstantial evidence‑Petitioner earlier appearing at examination three times from Centre S and three times from Centre L and failing on all such occasions‑Petitioner appearing for last time from Centre B, having no connection with such town, and obtaining 70 percent. marks‑ , Such circumstance, held, by itself enough to establish charge of "unfair means".‑[Evidence‑Unfair means]. (g) Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Lahore)‑ ‑ Rr. 6(8) & 6(17) (i)‑Annulment of examination result‑Inquiry, nature of‑Question of affording opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses arises. only in cases of ‑direct evidence but not in cases of circumstantial evidence‑Evidence being of circumstantial nature giving of information to offender about circumstances appearing against him and affording him opportunity to explain such circumstances, held, sufficient.‑[Witness‑Evidence]. (h) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ Art. 199‑Maxims : Fraus et jus num quam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) and Frau et doles nemini patroeenari debut (fraud and deceit ought not to benefit any one)‑Writ jurisdic tion‑Fraud vitiates most solemn proceedings‑No‑ party can be allowed. to take advantage of his own fraud=Discretionary relief of High Court, as consistently, held, cannot,be granted to help retention of i!1‑gotten gains even if Tribunars,~ord&; for any technical reason, not justifiable.‑[Fraud‑Maxim]. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v,., Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others P L D 1975 S C 331 ref. (i) Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Lahore)‑ ‑ R. 6(8)‑Use of unfair means at examination‑Annulment of result Charge against petitioner extremely serious and grave and found by Board to have been duly proved‑Machinations of type indulged in by petitioner not only resulting in undue advantage to unscrupulous arid. undeserving candidates to exclusion of bona fide scholars but also bringing infamy and bad name to Boards and Universities and in ultimate analysis tarnishing image of country, a better' case of award of exemplary costs than one in such circumstances, held, could not be conceived‑Petitioner ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,000 to each respondent.‑[Costs‑'Unfair means].