' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant constitutional petition prayed issuance of writ to the respondents to issue the petitioner her Matriculation Certificate.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that the petitioner appeared in Second Annual Examination 1990 under Roll No,00209 in Second Group at Examination Centre set up at Government Girls High School Ravi Road, Lahore, as a private student. Petitioner successfully passed the said examination, which was held by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, in Grade-A. Petitioner was conveyed the result through a result card and was notified to have passed in the gazette issued by the Board. Petitioner claimed that on account of death of her father she could not continue with her studies, as her family shifted to Jalalpur Sharif, District Pind Dadan Khan District Jhelum. According to her, she was married on 10-4-1999 at Sargodha but relations between the spouses did not remain cordial and ultimately resulted in separation. The petitioner remained busy on account of her indulgence in litigation arising out of unsuccessful married life. She after getting rid of her family problems, in order to pull her life, got admission in Homeopathic College where she was required to produce Matriculation Certificate then she opted to move the respondents for grant of the original Matriculation Certificate which was earlier not obtained but the same was declined and instead, she was directed to apply for duplicate certificate. The petitioner was not granted even duplicate certificate on the ground that there had been a case of "unfair means" against her.
Petitioner being ignorant of UMC opted to have copies of the record of the same, which were also not given to her, necessitating filing of instant petition.
3. Respondents on Court's requisition filed their report/parawise comments through their Legal Advisor wherein it was asserted that the petitioner was disqualified by the Disciplinary Committee under rule 6.10 (11) for six Examinations i.e, from Secondary School 2nd (Annual) Examination 1990 to Secondary School (First Annual) Examination 1993 on account of using "unfair means" during her Annual Examination of 1990. They produced `extract' of the register which carried a note regarding decision by the Disciplinary Committee dated 23-10-1991 and it was urged that original file of UMC against the petitioner was not available, due to destruction of record.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. The respondents could not refute that the petitioner did appear in the Second Annual Examination 1990 under Roll No,00209, as a private candidate and she was issued result card declaring her as successful with 677 marks and was placed in Grade-"A" on 4th of October, 1990.
The petitioner also produced 'extract' from the gazette relating to her examination wherein she was also declared, "Pass" with 677 marks. The gazette was also not denied by the respondents. A candidate once having successfully passed his Matriculation Certificate and the result having been declared by the respondents without any clog in undisputed card and gazette cannot be disqualified on the basis of any entry in the register maintained for "unfair means cases", wherein the alleged entry was made by some of the Clerical Staff to the effect that "Disqualified for six Examinations sd/- dated 23-10-1991" without signatures of any of the members forming Disciplinary Committee or without any backing of record, resulting in her disqualification. In the normal course of events if some student is involved in "unfair means case", his/her result is kept for declaration later on but in the instant case, the petitioner was declared successful, as noted above.
4-A. According to the learned Legal Advisor for the respondents, the petitioner faced charge of impersonation during the above referred Matriculation Examination and thus, cancellation of her result and disqualification for six consecutive examinations were lawful, has not impressed me for the simple reason that register relied by the respondents for disqualification of the petitioner was kept by some clerk whose even name is not known to the respondents. Had there been any case of impersonation, the same would have been during the course of examination and that too in the examination hall but no such occurrence was reported to the respondents by the examiner or was relied by them and case against her was manoeuvred after declaration of result which for the reasons above detailed, was of no validity. This Court in another case of Muzzam Nazir Chanda v.
Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman 1998 CLC 627 took the view by relying on judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Government of Sindh v. Saif Ullah Hashmi 1993 SCM R 956, that on the basis of mere entries in the register, charge of impersonation against the candidate could not be proved. Judgment relied by the learned Legal Advisor in the case of Sahibzadi Ismat Hassan Sabari v. Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab 1999 SCM R 2487, was graciously given in altogether different facts in a case of remarking of papers which was declined on account of destroy of record, thus the same is of no help to the case of the respondents.
5. For the reasons noted above, respondents could not decline issuance of Matriculation Certificate to the petitioner on the basis of an entry in register, without backing of original file and proof to the effect that the petitioner was really involved in impersonation by sending some one else to sit in the examination in her place and their complaint and decision of U.M.C., if any, are accordingly declared to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence with the result this petition is accepted and writ as prayed is issued against the respondents, with no order as to costs.