Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 5765 of 1981, decided on 4th April, 1982.

‑‑ Art. 199‑Proceedings of Discipline Committee and of Committee of Appeal constituted by respondent Board not indicating petitioner having been given reasonable opportunity. of defending his case‑No memorandum touching alleged recovery of piece of printed paper from petitioner prepared nor petitioner's statement recorded under rules nor alleged that petitioner refused to give statement when called upon to do so‑Evidence of Superintendent of Examination also not showing petitioner having indulged in copying during examination impugned decisions of Discipline Committee being arbitrary, held, cannot stand test of scrutiny by High Court‑Petition allowed.

S. M.‑ K. Lodhi for Petitioner.

Ijaz Ahmad for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 4th April, 1982.

This petition impugning the validity of the order of the Discipline Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, dated the 29th October, 1981 disqualifying the petitioner from passing the secondary school examination of the Board held in spring, 1981, and from taking three successive examinations to be held in autumn, 1981, spring and autumn 1982, as also of the order of the Committee of Appeal of the Board dated the 21st January, 1981, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of the Discipline Committee arises out of the following circumstances. Asif Khayyam, petitioner, appeared in the secondary school examination of the Board held in spring of 1981, under Roll No. 12853 at Government Watan Islamia High School, Lahore, examination centre. The examination came to an end on the 6th April, 1981. The result of the examination was declared on the 7th July, 1981. The result of the petitioner and his classmates was communicated to the Headmaster of Government Watan Islamia High School, Lahore, by the Board. The petitioner was declared successful in the examination obtaining 528 marks. The list of his detailed marks which he secured in various papers furnished by the Board and received by the Headmaster was supplied to the petitioner. He got 71 marks in Chemistry.

2. However, in the Gazette of the Board against the name of the petitioner was mentioned not the marks obtained by him but simply 'UMC' indicating that his was an unfair means case. On the 11th July, 1981, the Board issued the petitioner charge‑sheet (copy Annexure A) levelling against him the allegations that a piece of printed paper had been recovered from his possession on the 5th April, 1981, when he was taking examination in Chemistry. paper and that he had copied therefrom and further that he had been copying daily with the connivance of the supervisory staff. In his reply (copy Annexure B) the petitioner refuted the charge and denied that any piece of printed paper had been recovered from him or that he bad ever copied. The Discipline Committee of the Board, without examining any evidence in the presence of the petitioner, passed the impugned order of his disqualification. In appeal he demanded that he should be allowed to cross‑examine Sultan Ahmad, a clerk of the Board, who had been sent as general supervisor and who is stated to have recovered a piece of printed paper from which the petitioner is said to have copied, as well as the Superintendent of the examination hall in order to elicit truth. The Committee of Appeal called both Sultan Ahmad and Mr. Zafarullah, Superintendent of the examination centre. All that Sultan Ahmad stated before the Committee of appeal was that his previous report and statement should be considered as correct. He did not give statement narrating bow he had caught the‑ petitioner while copying. The petitioner was not shown the previous report or statement of Sultan Ahmad. The Committee considered the questions put by the petitioner to Sultan Ahmad to be irrelevant and, therefore, he could not be cross‑examined by the petitioner. The Committee noted that the Superintendent had said that the petitioner's case had not been brought to his notice otherwise he must have sent his case to the Board. According to the Superintendent the petitioner was not caught while copying. The record of the Board shows that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross‑examine the Superintendent. Nevertheless, the Committee dismissed the petitioner's appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Board stated that the Superintendent of the examination centre had colluded with the petitioner and that the said Superintendent bad been disqualified by the Board to supervise its examinations. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the correctness of the assertion of the learned counsel for the respondent and maintained that the said Superintendent bad supervised the examination of the' Board held in the last month. The learned counsel for the respondent was asked to secure true information from the Board and inform this Court as to whether the Board appointed Mr. Zafarullah as Superintendent of examination again despite the fact that the Board was of the view that he bad connived at the petitioner's copying. After contact with the Board the learned counsel for the respondent confirmed that Mr. Zafarullah was appointed as Superintendent to super vise examination of the Board last month. In this situation I do not think the Board is taking Mr: Zafarullah to have collaborated with the petitioner in matter of copying otherwise it would have at least taken care not to reappoint him for supervising the examination. Hence if Mr. Zafarullah is to be believed the petitioner could not be said to have indulged in copying. Even otherwise the proceedings of the Discipline Committee and of the Committee of Appeal commented upon above do not indicate that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of defending his case. Taking all the facts into consideration the‑findings of the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal seems to be based on erroneous assumption of facts and not upon material which could justify for holding the petitioner to be guilty of copying, 1t need hardly be said that no memorandum touching alleged recovery of the piece of printed paper from the petitioner was prepared nor was the petitioner's statement recorded under the rules nor it was alleged that he had refused to give statement when called upon to do so. The impugned decisions of the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal being arbitrary cannot stand the test of scrutiny by this Court. this petition is accordingly accepted with costs and the impugned orders of the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

M. Y. M. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.