1990 CLC 898 (PLP)

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Educational Institution‑‑‑Withholding of result of candidate on ground of unfair means‑‑‑Neither allegation against petitioner nor inquiry proceedings disclosed that he solved question papers on the basis of answers obtained from other candidates‑‑‑Order of withholding result of the candidate was thus not sustainable in law and same was declared without lawful authority‑‑ Board was directed to declare result of petitioner on the basis of examination already taken by him.‑‑[Educational institution]. Mian Muhammad Bashir for Petitioner. Ch. Ejaz Ahmad, Legal Advisor for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th September, 1989. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the disqualification order passed by the respondents against the petitioner for his appearance in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, in April, 1988, December, 1958, and April, 1989.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (hereinafter called the Board) received a report from the Centrel Superintendent against the petitioner that he came late by 25 minutes in the Examination Hall and created disturbance for nearly two hours despite warning by the Superintendent. The report is to the following effect:‑ The Discipline Committee, after perusing the material available on record and recording the statement of the petitioner, decided to disqualify him for the Intermediate Examination Spring, 1988, and the next two examinations, that is to say, Autumn, 1988, and Spring, 1989, on the basis of the aforesaid charge, by order dated 20‑10‑1988. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order which was also rejected by the Committee of Appeal, vide order dated 1‑12‑1988.

3. It is not necessary to go into the detailed merits of the case. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground that the allegation of disturbance levelled against the petitioner suffers from vagueness. The candidates from whom the petitioner was allegedly inquiring about answers have not been stated with particularity. Neither the Charge‑sheet nor the record of the inquiry proceedings, which I have perused with the assistance of the Legal Advisor of the Board, indicate the names of the candidates from whom the petitioner allegedly inquired certain questions. Furthermore, it is preposterous to believe that the petitioner continued with the alleged disturbances by asking various anwers from A his co‑candidates and the Centre Superintendent merely performed an idle ceremony for all this period. In any event, even if the allegations are assumed to be correct, the Centre Superintendent, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was equally guilty of contributory negligence, as he failed to initiate or take any action against the co‑candidates for allegedly furnishing answers to the petitioner and permitted continuance of the alleged disturbance in the Examination Centre for nearly two hours. The petitioner has been condemned for the charges which have not been disclosed with particularity. This tantamounts to violation of basic principles of natural justice. The impugned order is also discriminatory and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

4. It may be pointed out that there is no allegation against the petitioner nor it is evident from the inquiry proceedings produced before the Court that the petitioner cheated or copied the answers or solved the question paper on the basis of the answers obtained by him from his co‑candidates during the course of the alleged disturbance.

5. In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and B the same is hereby declared as without lawful authority. The result is that respondent No.1 shall declare the result of the petitioner on the basis of the Intermediate Examination already taken by him in Spring, 1988, within fifteen days from today. The writ petition is accepted, but there shall be no order as to I costs. M.R.A./M‑1856/L Petition accepted.