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 No. 877 of 1981, decided on. 14th February, 1982.
(On appeal from the order dated 23rd June, 1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2376/1981).
‑‑Unfair means at examination‑Contended that petitioner rot given opportunity of hearing inasmuch as neither reports forming basis of initiation of proceedings nor material forming foundation of such reports supplied to him‑No grievance on such account, however, made before authorities‑Material giving rise to proceedings in fact petitioner's own answer books which petitioner did not disown Petitioner also heard firstly by Disciplinary Committee and then by Appellate Authority‑Factual and circumstantial aspects of case having been duly considered by High Court no exception, held, could be taken to decision of High Court not interfering with finding of fact arrived at by Departmental Authorities‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ch. Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th February, 1982.
‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Lahore High Court dated 23‑6‑1981, whereby his writ petition against the decision of the authorities of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, to disqualify him from three examinations, was dismissed in limine.
2. The petitioner had appeared at the F. Sc. (Medical) Annual Examina tion 1980 from Shahkot Centre, District Sheikhupura. The examiners in Chemistry Paper A and Chemistry Paper B made separate but nearly identical reports on the basis of the petitioner's respective answer‑books to the effect that be had answered some of the questions with outside help or had copied from a text‑book. The Disciplinary Committee having been satisfied in regard to the correctness of the allegation penalized him as mentioned above. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the same, too, failed, whereupon, he took recourse to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without success.
3. It is contended that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity of hearing inasmuch as neither the reports upon which the proceedings had bee initiated against him nor the material upon which those reports had been based, had been supplied to him. Learned counsel has, however, failed to show that a grievance on this account had been made by the petitioner before the authorities. In fact the material, which had given rise to the proceeding against him, had been his own answer‑books which he had not disowned. The petitioner had also been personally heard twice, first by the Disciplinary Committee and then by the Appellate authority. The contention, therefore, has no merit. The factual and circumstantial aspects of the case were duly considered by the High Court and as such no exception can be taken to it decision not to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Departmental authorities. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer