' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 22-6-2007 passed by the respondents through which matriculation result card of the petitioner earlier passed by him in the year, 1978 has been cancelled.
2. Briefly the facts narrated in this petition are that the petitioner had applied for taking intermediate' examination held in the year, 2004 against Roll No.34445 at D.G. Khan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The petitioner having been found using unfair means was declared disqualified by the committee for further six examinations and an F.I.R. Was also got registered against the petitioner. The above said Board informed the respondents Board about the conduct of the petitioner and recommended for cancellation of result card of Matriculation Examination of the petitioner, which he had passed in 1978 and the respondents after seeking legal advice have cancelled the result card of matriculation of petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents could not cancel the result card of matriculation of the petitioner as the petitioner had already been punished by the D:G. Khan B.I.S.E.
For the alleged fault on his part and the action of the respondents for cancellation of the result card is illegal and unlawful; that order has been passed by the respondents without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which cannot be maintained in the eyes of law. Relies upon 2001 CLC 759.
4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents contends that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been overruled by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through case reported in PLD 2004 SC 2'5; that under Chapter 5 Rule 14 of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore the Board is empowered 40 cancel the result card of the petitioner; and that the petitioner was found to have used the unfair means in the examination, who does not deserve for any leniency and this petition may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the law cited by them.
6. It is not denied that the petitioner had passed his Matriculation Examination in the year, 1978.
Subsequently the petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination from D.G. Khan B.I.S.E. Held in the year, 2004 and was allotted Roll No.34445, who Was found having used unfair means for which he has already been punished by restraining him from appearing in the examination of Intermediate for six times, but the B.I.S.E. On the receipt of information that the petitioner had used unfair means in Intermediate Examination in the year, 2004 has cancelled the matriculation certificate of the petitioner, which he had cleared in the year, 1978. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Chapter 5 Rule 14 of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, which is re-produced here as under:--- "The Board shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate at any time after it has been declared:
(1) if he has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination; or (2) if a mistake is found in his result; or (3) if it is found that he was not eligible to appear in the examination; or (4) for any other reason that may be determined by the Board."
' From the bare perusal of the above rule it is clear that clauses (1) to (3) relates to the same examination on having found the same the Board is empowered to quash the result of a candidate, which is not case of the petitioner and only clause (4) has to be interpreted.
7. It is not denied that petitioner did not use unfair means in the Matriculation Examination and he was eligible to appear in the examination in the year, 1978 when he cleared the same and it became a past and closed chapter. No document has been shown that the Board had already declared that any candidates subsequently found to have been used unfair means even after a period of 30 years in any examination would be liable for cancellation of his earlier academic certificates as well. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Board that the petitioner had obtained the matriculation certificate by using unfair means as well. Hence, the order for cancellation of matriculation certificate of the petitioner is not sustainable. Although the case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner has been overruled by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 2004 SC 25, but however this case does not support the case of the respondents and relevant portion is reproduced here as under:--- "From a perusal of the above noticed rules governing the 'Parts System' of the Intermediate Examination, the scheme which emerges is that the two parts of Intermediate Examination are not two independent examinations and were in fact the parts, as the nomenclature itself indicates, of the same Intermediate Examination which was to be held with a gap of 12 months as compared to the earlier scheme in which the examination of the different papers of different subjects was held with a gap only of days. Therefore, we find that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that Part-1 Examination of the Intermediate Examination was an independent entity was not correct and consequently it could not be said that the said part of the Examination in question, once taken, could be treated as a past and a closed transaction for all the purposes.
' In the cited case it has been held that the examination conducted in parts is not independent to each other and the fault committed by the candidate in any part of the examination would affect the whole examination. Consequently it could not be said that the result of the First Part of the Examination having once been declared had become a past and a closed transaction, which could not be cancelled on account of a candidate having found using unfair means in any of the papers of the Second Part of the same examination. However, here the position is different. The examination of matriculation had no nexus with the Intermediate Examination and both being different entities, the petitioner could not be penalized by cancellation of his matriculation certificate as well in which there was no sort of allegation against the petitioner.
10. For the foregoing discussion, the impugned order for cancellation of the matriculation certificate of the petitioner cannot be sustained, which is set aside and this writ petition stands accepted in the same terms.