Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.3712 of 1984, decided on 19th January, 1987.

--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Admission to University' of Engineering-- Petitioner expelled from rolls of University on ground that on verification from Board it revealed that he had manoeuvred to procure 160 marks in subject of Physics as against his actual attainment of 107 marks and as such his total marks got increased from 615 to 668 marks whereas last student admitted had secured 661 marks and if his actual marks, i.e. 615, were taken into consideration he was not eligible to be admitted--Facts on record showing that petitioner sought admission in University on basis of result declared and a certificate issued to him by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education but his result was later revised and a fresh certificate was issued to him according to which he obtained 107 marks in subject of Physics as against 160 marks shown in certificate, initially issued- Board authorities admitting in their comments that mistake was committed by their dealing clerk who tabulated result and inadvertently recorded 160 marks instead of 107 marks on account of phonal similarity and that petitioner had no hand in it--Authorities of University passing impugned order proceeded on an erroneous assumption that petitioner had manipulated higher marks through unfair and corrupt means by influencing employees of Board--Contention of petitioner, that result certificate initially issued to him was not false or fabricated document, not denied by University Authorities--Petitioner had already successfully completed four terms of his course and had since appeared in last and fifth term of examination during pendency of writ petition when his expulsion order remained suspended--Held, order of expulsion was not warranted in circumstances as initial Certificate submitted by petitioner for seeking admission was not a false or fabricated document and as such petitioner could not be punished for error committed by an official of Board--Order of expulsion of petitioner from University declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Mian Irshad Ali v. Government of Pakistan P L D 1975 Lah. 7 and Mian Ijaz Iqbal and another v. Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce & Industry and another P L D 1983 Lah. 1 ref.

M.Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.

Sajjad Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th January, 1987.

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question a notice/order of the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, issued on 26-7-1984 whereby the petitioner was expelled from the rolls of the University.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner appeared in the F.Sc (Pre-Engineering) annual examination of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, held in the year 1980. He was declared successful and a certificate was issued to him by the Board showing that he had obtained 668 marks. The detailed marks subject-wise indicated in the certificate were as follows:-

Result published in the official Gazette also showed that the petitioner obtained 668 marks.

On the basis of the aforementioned certificate, petitioner was admitted to the 1st Year class of B.Sc. Course in Mechanical Engineering in the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, during the session 1981-82 on open merit under Category 'A' (Punjab Province). The admission was provisional and subject to verification of the result from the Board concerned.

3. It appears that the result of the petitioner was subsequently quashed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, on the ground that he had manoeuvred to procure 160 marks in the subject of Physics as against his actual attainment of 107 marks and thus his total marks got increased from 615 to 668 marks. Petitioner challenged the action/order of the Board in W.P. No.1474/1983 which was accepted by the Multan Bench of this Court and the Board was directed to consider the matter afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner. Consequently, the Board withdrew its earlier decision and revised the petitioner's result declaring him successful having obtained 615 marks instead of 668 marks.

4. On receipt of revised result of the petitioner, University authorities issued to him a show-cause notice dated 28-6-1984 wherein it was stated that since the last student admitted to the 1st Year class of B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering Course during the session 1981-82 had secured 661 marks, he, having obtained 615 marks, was not eligible to be admitted to the said class. Petitioner was, therefore, asked to show-cause why his admission should not be reviewed and he be expelled from the University. Case of the petitioner is that he did not receive this notice. However, on getting the information somehow, he obtained duplicate copy of the notice and submitted a reply thereto on 19-7-1984 but this reply was not considered by the authorities. Be that as it may, the University authorities vide the impugned notice/order dated 25-7-1984 expelled the petitioner from the rolls of the University with immediate effect with the direction that "all the examinations/ results already held/declared, if any, be treated to have been cancelled/ quashed with retrospective effect and all the dues so far deposited by him in the University be forfeited in favour of the University." Reason for the action stated in the notice was that according to the petitioner's revised result, he was not eligible for admission in the 1st Year class of B . Sc Mechanical Engineering as the last candidate admitted to that class had secured 661 marks. It was also observed in the impugned order that the petitioner was admitted on the basis of his Intermediate certificate showing 668 marks but on verification "it was noted/reported that the said Board had revised his result to 615/1000 marks instead of 668/1000 marks which he had obtained through unfair and corrupt means by influencing an employee of the said Board."

5. Petitioner challenged the aforementioned notice/order dated 26-7-1984 in the present constitutional petition. Petition was admitted to regular hearing on 21-8-1984 and order of expulsion was suspended. It may be stated that the petitioner had already successfully completed four terms of his course when the show-cause notice was issued and the impugned order of expulsion was passed. He has since appeared in the last and fifth term examination during the pendency of the writ petition but result thereof has not been declared.

Before proceeding further, it may also be stated that the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Multan, has submitted the parawise comments admitting that the petitioner was declared successful with 668 marks and a certificate in that behalf was also issued to him by the Board. It is further stated in the comments that the petitioner's result was, in the first instance, quashed because it was considered at that time that he was guilty of manoeuvring the increase of his marks in Physics from 107 to 160 marks. Matter was, however, reconsidered and the petitioner was given 107 marks in the subject of Physics which he had actually obtained and accordingly his result was revised and he was declared successful with 615 marks. Petitioner's plea that he had no hand in the increase of the marks has been conceded in the comments and it is stated therein that "the mistake in making the posting of earlier attainment was inadvertent, on the part of the dealing clerk It had occurred inadvertently being a clerical mistake. The candidate/ petitioner had no hand in it."

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the University. of Engineering. Facts stated herein above are not much in dispute. It is not denied that the petitioner sought the admission in the University of Engineering on the basis of the result declared and a certificate issued to him by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. Multan. His result was, however, later revised and a fresh certificate was issued to him according to which he had obtained 107 marks in the subject of Physics (as against 160 marks shown in the certificate initially issued). His total marks were thus reduced from 668 (initially declared) to 615. In view of this revised result, impugned action was taken against the petitioner expelling him from the University. Perusal of the impugned order, as noted above, shows that the authority passing it was of the view that the petitioner had manoeuvred to obtain hither marks through unfair and corrupt means. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this assumption was ill- founded. He submits that the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education held an enquiry during which the clerk who tabulated the result admitted that while posting the result of the petitioner in the subject of- Physics, he inadvertently recorded 160 marks instead of 107. According to the learned counsel, the clerk had explained that one of his colleagues was pronouncing the result in the local language and he was entering the same in the relevant register and on account of phonal similarity in the two figures, he recorded 160 instead of 107. It is pointed out that this position has been specifically stated in para 3 of the writ petition which has not been denied by the respondents. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, has rather admitted in its comments that the mistake as aforesaid was committed by the dealing clerk and the petitioner had no hand in it. This being so, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority passing the impugned order proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the petitioner had manipulated higher marks through unfair and corrupt means by influencing an employee of the Board.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, no doubt, petitioner's admission was provisional but he contends that it could not be reviewed /cancelled after the petitioner had successfully completed four terms of his course particularly when he was not responsible for the increase in his marks which increase admittedly took place on account of an. inadvertent mistake committed by a functionary of the Board. Argument of the learned counsel is that the petitioner could not be penalized for the mistake committed by an official of the Board. He relies on the maxim "actus curiae neminum gravabit" (an act of Court shall prejudice no man) and contends that the principle enshrined in this maxim is equally applicable to the quasi-judicial tribunals and, public/ statutory functionaries. Reliance for this proposition is placed on Mian Irshad Ali v . Government of Pakistan P L D 1975 Lah. 7 and Mian Ijaz Iqbal and another V. Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce & Industry and another P L D 1983 Lah. 1.

8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although in the impugned order, no provision has been cited whereunder the impugned action was taken against the petitioner, respondent-University in its comments has sought to justify its action with reference to pars. 46.1(d) of the University Prospectus. Relevant para reads as follows:---

"On fulfilment of the obligations mentioned in para(a) above, the candidate will be admitted to the University and the class Roll Number will be notified. The admission so allowed shall be considered PROVISIONAL until and unless the original Degree/ Certificate of the B.Sc/B.A., G.C.E.(A) Intermediate, Diploma Examination (viz Pass Certificate and the Detailed Marks Certificate) NCC and Domicile certificates are presented by the candidate to Dean of the Faculty concerned. In case the documents submitted by the candidate are proved false or fake or fabricated at the later stage, he/she shall be liable to expulsion from the University or to any other disciplinary action which the University shall deem fit to take against him/her and all the dues deposited by him/her shall be forfeited in favour of the University and he/she shall have no claim of the Provisional admission granted to him/her."

Learned counsel argues that under the aforequoted provision, a student is liable to expulsion from the University or to any other disciplinary action in case the documents submitted by him are proved to be false or fake or fabricated at a later stage. His contention is that the certificate which the petitioner submitted at the time of seeking the admission in the University was duly issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, on the basis of result declared by it and was, therefore, a genuine document. According to the learned counsel, the fact that the petitioner's result was subsequently revised would also not render the certificate initially issued as a false or fabricated document in view of the admitted position that the petitioner was not in any. manner responsible for the increase in the marks.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the University has not been able to controvert the aforementioned contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not denied that the assumption in the impugned order that the petitioner had obtained the higher marl, through unfair and corrupt means had no basis on facts. In fact, the position stated in the comments of the Board rather belies this assumption. The impugned action is also not warranted under para 46.1(d) aforequoted as the certificate submitted by the petitioner for seeking admission was not a false or fabricated document. Learned counsel for the petitioner also rightly submitted that the petitioner could not be punished for the errors committed by an official of the Board.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned notice/order dated 26-7-1984 passed by the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, expelling the petitioner from its rolls cannot be sustained and same is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Writ petition is accordingly allowed but with no order as to costs.

M.Y.H./M-351/L Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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