Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 35‑R of 1982, decided on 28th February, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 18th November, 1981 in Writ Petition No. 163 of 1981).
(a) Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Rawalpindi) Examination Rules‑
‑‑ R. 8 (i) (v)‑Rule 8 (v) though indicates smuggling of answer book dealt with therein to be relatable to examination hall but petitioner being also accused of receiving assistance for solving question papers and such conduct being covered by r. 8 (i) whether both clauses (i) & (v) read together might cover case of replacement of answer books [Quaere]
‑‑ R. 8(i) (v)‑‑‑New point‑Question whether act of petitioner subject matter of inquiry, took place out of examination hall not appearing to have been at issue as regards formal charge‑Specific question as raised in Supreme Court if taken before High Court further relevant inquiry might have been made‑Petitioner, accordingly, held, cannot take any advantage in such regard.
Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 28th February, 1982.
Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 18‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitu tional petition arising out of a case of use of unfair means by a student (the petitioner) was dismissed. The allegation against the petitioner was that while appearing in the Intermediate Spring Examination 1980, "he had got answer books in paper Biology B, Physics A and B and Chemistry A and B replaced" and thus he was charged with the contravention of rules 7 (i), 7 (ii), 8 (i), 8 (v), (13), 15 (2), (6), (7), (8) and (11).
The Discipline Committee after due proceedings found him guilty and disqualified him for four examinations. He was also awarded a separate penalty by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education ; but that is no more the subject of grievance raised from the petitioner's side. An appeal was also filed before the Board against the decision of the Committee which failed. The petitioner then moved a writ petition in the High Court which was partly allowed regarding the penalty imposed by the Board. The remain ing punishment having been upheld by the High Court, the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal.
The learned counsel has contended that clauses (7) and (8) of the relevant rules not being applicable, the award of punishment by the Disciplinary committee under the said rules, is without jurisdiction, and secondly, that it was a case of no evidence, in so far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned.
The perusal of the High Court judgment and the other relevant papers shows that there was enough material direct and infrential against the petitioner,. therefore, the finding of guilty is unexceptionable.
The other contention raised by the learned counsel, prima facie relates to the interpretation of rule (8) whereunder according to him, a case of replace ment of the answer books by a candidate would riot be dealt with. Instead it covered only smuggling of answer books into or out of the examination hall. No doubt clause 8 (v) of the rules indicates that the struggling of the answer book dealt with therein is relatable to the examination hall but the petitioner was also accused of receiving assistance for solving the question papers which is covered by clause 8 (i) and when read together clause 8 (i) and 8 (v) might cover his case. However in the circumstances of this case, we do not deem it necessary to give a determinative decision on the question raised, as it was rot so raised before the High Court. According to the learned counsel, the plea taken from the respondent's side in the High Court was that the act of the petitioner which was the subject matter of inquiry, had taken place out of the examination hall. This does not appear to be the respondent's case insofar as the formal charge is concerned. If a specific point as has been raised in this Court would have been pressed in the High Court, further relevant inquiry might have been made. The petitioner accordingly cannot take any advantage in this behalf. None of the arguments of the learned counsel has any force. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer