M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- Petitioner is Tehsil Nazim, Union Council Tehsil Choa Saidan Shah, District Chakwal having elected in the Local Government Election 2005. At the time of nomination papers, petitioner opponent Haji Malik Muhammad Younas filed an application before the Returning Officer, Choa Saidan Shah stating therein that the Matric Certificate of the petitioner is bogus but the Returning Officer turned down his application vide order dated 16.9.2005 and petitioner's nomination papers were accepted, thereafter, the said Haji Malik Muhammad Younas filed an appeal before District Returning Officer and the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 20.9.2005 and Writ Petition No. 2689/05 filed by said Malik Younas also met the same fate and dismissed vide order dated 23.9.2005.
2. According to the petitioner, against the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2689/05, Civil Petition No. 2486/05 was moved by Haji Malik Muhammad Younas before the Apex Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.4.2006, thereafter, the opponents of the petitioner approached the respondents apprising them that the petitioner did not appear in the matriculation examination himself in the annual session 2004 conducted by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi, rather some one else by impersonating him, appeared in the examination and solved the papers, the photograph of the person was pasted upon the Roll Number Slip, who appeared in the examination and solved the papers, so result card was issued in the name of Raja Muhammad Nasir Jamal, who in fact, did not appear in the Exam. And did not pass matriculation examination held in 6e month of March-April, 2004.
3. That thereafter necessary proceedings were held by the respondents/Board and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.5.2008 for providing him a personal hearing and appear before the Chairman (respondent No. 1) on 9.5.2008. Most probably petitioner moved some application on 9.5.2008, which was returned and it was duly informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.6.2008 by the Controller of Examination Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi (respondent No. 2). Thereafter, Board in its meeting dated 30.10.2008 cancelled the result of the petitioner and vide impugned letter dated 19.11.2008 asked him to deposit the cancelled result card/matriculation certificate issued earlier. On 13.11.2008, Board also issued its press notification.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner himself appeared in the examination and in the earlier round or litigation Superior Courts did not accept the version of his opponent.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the relevant documents annexed with this petition, I find that District Returning Officer in his order dated 29.9.2005 has observed that allegation levelled against the petitioner need regular inquiry by the concerned Board and thus he did not interfere in the order passed by the Returning Officer accepting the nomination papers of the petitioner. The question which requires determination by this Court is whether the petitioner has himself appeared in the matriculation examination, qualified the same and the Result Card allegedly issued in his favour by the concerned Board was genuine or bogus document is a question of fact, which required recording of evidence and examination of record and the same exercise was done by the Board and respondents being custodian of record were the best Judge to determine the genuineness of Result Card. This Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot go into the dispute'. Questions of facts. Reliance is placed on the case' of Benedict F.D., Souza V.
Karachi Building Control Al 'ority and three others (1989 SCM R 918), Federation of Pakistan and two others v. Major (Retd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan (PLD 1991 S.C. 476) and Muhammad Younas Khan v.
Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others (1993 SCM R 618).
6. The Board holding necessary inquiry has cancelled the Result Card/certificate of the petitioner declaring him pass in the matriculation examination in the annual session 2004 and no exception can be taken to the said order passed by respondents by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, resultantly, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. .