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. 609 of 1981, decided on 31st October, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑3‑1981 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition 1419 of 1981).
‑‑ Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑Writ jurisdiction‑Leave to appeal‑High Court on examination of answer book in dispute finding staples disturbed and subsequently fixed ‑Colour of inner leaves allegedly inserted subsequently different‑Letter b' used in some of words also written in a different way‑Report of appellate Committee supporting allegation of candidate having solved paper in question with outside help‑No justification in evidence, held, existed to disturb finding of fact arrived at by Board authorities and case not fit for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 31st October, 1980.
‑The petitioner was disqualified by the respon dent from appearing in three examination for using unfair means by the order communicated by the Deputy Controller (Examination) (respondent No. 1 herein) vide his order dated 14‑1‑1981. He then filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Committee of Appeal on 23‑1‑1981. He then moved the Lahore High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court sent for the record and after thoroughly scrutinizing the relevant record passed the following order: ‑
"I sent for the record and have today seen the answer book in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The answer book in Chemistry Paper shows very clearly that the staples had been disturbed and subsequently fixed. The colour of the inner leaves alleged to have been inserted subsequently as well as the ink used is quite different. Letter b' used in some of the words has also been written in a different way. The report of the appellate committee, supports the position that the candidate solved the paper in question with outside help. The report reads as under:
The candidate was heard in person. He could not repeat a word of any of the subjects in which he had copied or received assistance, lie is guilty and has rightly been punished,
In view of the above I do not find any justification to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the domestic tribunal."
This order was passed on 22‑3‑1981. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the above said order.
We have heard Mr. Munir Ahmad Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner and are entirely in " agreement with the High Court that in the circumstances of the case noticed above there was no justification to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Board authorities and that this was no a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction and that the petition was rightly dismissed.
No ground for interference, therefore, exists. This petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer