Find a Lawyer

writ Petition No. 1782 of 1972, decided on 3rd August, 1973.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Educational institutions‑‑Admission in Medical College‑ Principles of natural justice, Violation of‑‑Proof‑‑Petitioner who was found guilty of getting admission in Medical College on basis of forged result card and detailed marks, was duly informed by Board Authorities through Principal of respective Medical College who issued notice to petitioner accordingly‑‑Board Authorities sending charge‑sheet to petitioner and on receiving back as undelivered, getting same published ,In newspaper‑‑‑On coming to know about publication of notice, petitioner approached Board authorities and received copy of charge‑sheet‑‑On failure of petitioner to send reply of charge‑sheet Board Authorities sent reminder whereupon petitioner submitted his reply‑‑Petitioner was issued as many as six notices for interview but he did not appear on one pretext or other‑‑Contention of petitioner that he had not been afforded reasonable opportunity to explain his position, held, had no substance in circumstances.

(b) Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore Rules for Intermediate Examination‑‑‑

‑‑‑R. 6.6‑1I‑‑Unfair means‑‑Admission in Medical College Forged documents‑‑Question of cancellation‑‑Where on reference of matter, Board or University authorities had come to know that any person had obtained some benefit in securing admission in '.Medical College etc. on basis of certificate or degree which admittedly was not issued by such Authorities, but proved to be forged one, Authorities in such matter after hearing person concerned, held, would pass order declaring that such forged document had no legal existence and person concerned could not secure or claim any benefit on basis of such documents‑‑Where forged documents were not issued by Authorities, question of cancellation of such documents by Authorities could not arise, because where anything, order or result was not in existence at all, question of its cancellation would not arise.

‑‑Art. 199‑‑Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, Rules for Intermediate Examination, R. 6.6‑II‑‑Unfair means case‑ Admission in medical college‑‑Decision of Board Authorities that result card relied upon by petitioner for getting admission in Medical College was not issued by them, but was forged one, is one thing and taking action against such student by Medical College Authorities is quite another thing‑‑Students getting admission in Medical College by producing forged document showing 1st Division, admittedly had basic qualification (F.Sc. Pre‑Medical, though Second Division) for being admitted in Medical College‑‑Such student after getting admission had already passed First and Second Professional M.B.,B.S. and had appeared in third Professional‑‑‑ By striking off name of petitioner from College Roll at that crucial stage, no benefit would accrue to any person‑‑No doubt petitioner had got admission in college by employing unfair and improper means, but as Government had already spent considerable amount on petitioner, who after passing M. B. , B . S. examination within a year or two, would be able to serve suffering humanity and amount spent by Government on such student would also not go to waste‑‑High Court in view of such facts, observed that college authorities should not follow course of Board Authorities, but in expelling petitioner from college, Principal who had issued notice to student, might in his discretion take his independent decision.

Syed Muhammad Naqi for Petitioner. Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Respondents.

SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL, C.J.‑‑The case of the petitioner is that he appeared in the F.Sc. (Annual) Examination of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore held in 1967, under Roll No. 42882 and secured Second Division. To improve upon his Division, the petitioner alleges to have again appeared in the F.Sc. (Annual) Examination held in 1968, under Roll No. 13950, and was placed in the First Division, having obtained 649 Marks. An attested copy of the Result Card has been placed on record of this petition as Annexure "A". The petitioner also obtained a Detailed Marks Certificate (photostat at Annexure "B"), and on the basis of the said two documents he obtained admission in the M. B.,B.S. Class of the Nishtar Medical College, Multan. After two years of his admission, the petitioner was served with a notice, dated the 17th of January, 1970 to show cause why his name should not be struck off the College Rolls on the ground that he had obtained admission in the College by producing false documents.

The petitioner's case is that when he explained the entire position to the Principal of his college, he felt satisfied and dropped the matter. The petitioner alleges that thereafter it was only on the 21st of February, 1971 that he learnt through a notice in the Daily "The Pakistan Times" of that date that he had been required to appear before the Discipline Committee of the Board on the 4th of March, 1971 because the charge‑sheet sent to him at the last known address had been returned undelivered. The case of the petitioner is that he approached the Board's office, obtained a copy of the charge‑sheet and submitted his reply but in May, 1971 he was again required by another notice to submit his reply to the charge‑sheet, dated the 18th of March, 1971. Accordingly, he submitted his reply on the 19th of May, 1972. It is alleged in the petition that nothing was heard from the Board till the 12th of June, 1972 when they once again issued a notice to the petitioner to show‑cause why his result of F.Sc. (1968‑Annual) be not cancelled on the ground that he had not at all appeared in the Examination. According to the petitioner, he submitted his reply on the 17th of June, 1972, but without affording him any opportunity of being heard, the Chairman of the Board by his order, dated the 20th of June, 1972 cancelled his result on the basis of which the Principal of the College served upon him a notice, dated the 13th of December, 1972 calling upon him to explain the circumstances under which he produced false documents and also to show cause why his name be not struck off the college Rolls, his College dues, etc. forfeited to Government and a case registered with the police.

2. The petition came up for hearing before me on the 20th of December, 1972 when I directed that the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary, Education, Multan be asked to submit parawise comments. Meanwhile, the petitioner was directed to submit to the Principal his reply to the show‑cause notice and was allowed to appear in the Third Professional of M. B. , B.S. which was to commence

on the 27th of December, 1972, with a further direction that his result would not be declared till the disposal of the petition.

3. The respondent has submitted para‑wise comments and has also produced before me the original record which has been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well.

The record shows that the petitioner appeared in the F.Sc. (Annual) Examination held in 1967, under Roll No. 42882, and was placed in the Second Division. In order to improve upon his Division he again appeared in the F.Sc. (Annual) Examination held in 1968, under Roll No. 158, but unfortunately failed. This is clear from the record of the Board and from the admission form which the petitioner himself submitted and bore his signatures. On that admission form he was allotted Roll No. 158 and he was to appear from Centre No. 2, Khanewal. He was marked present in the Attendance Chart by the Centre Superintendent on each day of Examination. The Identification sheets contain his roll number against which signatures of the petitioner appear. The Admission form also contains the Fee Form showing that he deposited the fee on the 29th November, 1967.

The petitioner, however, appears to have been successful in getting indubitably with the connivance of some official of the Board, placed on record of the Board and Admission Form on which Roll No. 13950 is purported to have been issued, the Centre of Examination is stated to be Sahiwal and the result has been that the candidate is shown to have passed by securing 649 marks. that this Admission Form is not a genuine document there can be no doubt about. On this Admission Form the petitioner stated that he was appearing for the first time which according to the petitioner's own case even in this petition is absolutely false. He had already appeared in 1967 under Roll No. 42882 and was placed in Second Division. This time he had admittedly appeared to improve upon Division. In the forged Form the petitioner showed that he passed his Secondary School Certificate Examination in the year 1965 under Roll No. 60615. According to the Result Gazette of year 1965, Roll No. 60615 was allotted to one Abdul Jabbar who failed in English. Actually, the petitioner appeared in the Secondary School Certificate Examination held in 1964 under Roll No. 35564 and secured 635 marks. The forged document though does not contain any fee form, but it has been mentioned therein that the fee was deposited under Habib Bank Challan No. 099101, dated the 6th of December, 1967. According to the record, none has deposited any kind of money under this number; again, according to the petitioner's case he appeared from Sahiwal Centre. There were five F.Sc. (Annual) Examination Centres in 1968 in the town of Sahiwal. I have seen the record of all the centres but the petitioner's name does not figure in any of these centres; it is, therefore, clear that the petitioner had never appeared under Roll No. 13950 in the F.Sc. (Annual) Examination held in the year 1968 and the Result Card as well as the Detailed Marks Certificate on the basis of which he had obtained admission in the M . B. B . S . Class of Nishtar Medical College, Multan were false documents.

4. I find no substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain his position. The case of forgery saw the light of the day for the first time in June, 1969 and the Board informed the Principal of the College, accordingly, on the basis of which a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Principal on the 17th of January, 1970. The Board itself sent a charge‑sheet dated the 5th of November; 1970 which was, however, received back undelivered. The Board then published a notice in "The Pakistan Times" in its issue dated the 21st of February, 1971. Upon that the petitioner approached the Board authorities who again gave him a copy of the charge‑sheet on the 18th of March, 1971, and since no reply was sent by the petitioner a reminder was also sent, whereupon the petitioner submitted his reply on the 19th of May, 1971.

So far as the interview is concerned, he was issued as many as six notices between 29th of October, 1971 and 12th of June, 1972 but he did not appear on one pretext or the other. By the last notice, dated the 12th of June, 1972 he was told to appear on the 20th of June, 1972 to which he replied on the 17th of June, 1972 that he would appear only if the record was made available to him. It is, however, an admitted position that the petitioner did not appear on the 20th of June, 1972. Since the petitioner did not care to appear on the date last mentioned, there was no question of the respondent's making available the record to him.

I may, however, state that something is cancelled only if it exists. If a thing, order or result does not exist, the question of its cancellation does not arise. It is the case of the respondent and it is also established by the facts on record which have been mentioned above that Roll No. 13950 was never issued to the petitioner, that he did not appear from Sahiwal and that, therefore, it was a fictitious roll number. The petitioner had, in fact, appeared under Roll No. 158 from Khanewal. The result card issued to him under Roll No. 13950 showing that the petitioner had secured 649 marks was also a false document, The Board admittedly not having issued any such result card, the question of the Chairman canceling it could not arise. The only order which was competent and should have been passed was that the result card showing that the petitioner had appeared under Roll No. 13950 and had secured 649 marks was not issued by the Board and as such it had no legal existence. I have mentioned these facts so that the Board or the University authorities in such cases should not take upon themselves to cancel the result, but if they think that a person had obtained some benefit on the basis of a certificate or degree which the University or the Board, as the case may be, had not issued, and the matter is referred to it, the authorities concerned should in such a case, after hearing the person concerned, pass an order declaring that such a document had no legal existence and the person concerned could not secure or claim any benefit on the basis of the same. Thus, the writ petition cannot succeed.

5. Before parting with the case, I may observe that it is one thing that the Board has taken decision that the result card relied upon by l the petitioner for getting admission in the Medical College was note issued by them, and it is quite another thing that the Medical College should take action against the student. The student, in the instant case, had admittedly the basic qualification for being admitted in the Medical College, i.e. F.Sc. (Pre‑Medical). He had passed the F.Sc Examination in the year 1967 under Roll No. 42882. Indeed, he could not get admission on the basis of that result, placed as he was, in the Second Division, but if he had been given admission it could not be said that he did not satisfy the basic educational requirement, the same being that he should have been F.Se. (Pre‑Medical). He has now appeared in the Third Professional M.B.,B.S., having already passed the 1st and the second Professionals. By striking off the name of the petitioner from the college Rolls at this stage, no benefit will accrue to any person. It is a common knowledge that each Medical College costs the Government itself about Rs.50,000. The Government has on the education of this boy also during the last four years, incurred al considerable expenditure, and after a year or so when he passes theM.B.B.S. Examination he will be able to serve the suffering humanity and the amount which the Government has spent on the education of this candidate will also not go to waste. However, in saying so I am fully conscious of the fact that the petitioner has obtained the admission in the College by employing unfair and improper means, but I have made these observations only with a view to emphasising on the college authorities that only because the Board has taken the decision they are not necessarily to follow the course of expelling the petitioner from the College and the Principal, who has issued notice to the petitioner, may in his discretion take his independent decision.

6. Subject to the above remarks, this petition is dismissed. It will now be competent for the respondent Principal to decide the case of the petitioner in pursuance of the show‑cause notice which he has already given to him.

H.B.T./S‑1/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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