1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 14-10-1980 dismissing Writ Petition No. 9061 of 1980 filed by the petitioner by which he called in question the order of the Special Disciplinary Committee dated 4-6-1980 disqualifying the petitioner from passing the Intermediate Examination held in Spring 1979 and also from appearing in the three immediately following examinations.
2. The facts shortly stated are that after nine failures at the Intermediate Examination, the petitioner was declared, in the Gazette Notification of the Board dated 24-12-1979, as having passed the Intermediate Examination of Spring 1979 with the score of 70 per cent. Marks. Two days afterwards, the Notification was revised and the petitioner was shown as "R. L. U. M. C.", that is, Result Later- Unfair Means Case and charge-sheet dated 3-1-1980 was then issued to him to show cause why action should not betaken against him for having substituted answer books issued to him in the Examination. During the course of further scrutiny of the case, it was revealed that many scandalous bunglings had taken place at the Bhai Pheru Examination Centre where the petitioner had appeared for the examination and another charge-sheet dated 30-1-1980 was issued to him.
3. Finally, after hearing the petitioner the Special Disciplinary Committee passed the order dated 6-4- 1980 disqualifying him from passing the Intermediate Examination of Spring 1979 and also from appearing in three immediately following examinations.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order but without awaiting final result thereof, he challenged the order of the Special Disciplinary Committee in Writ Petition No. 9061 of 1980 before Lahore High Court, which was however dismissed as stated above.
5. Chaudhry Hamid-ud-Din, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition firstly submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was held guilty in the absence of any evidence in support of the charges levelled against him, and the High Court has also erred in holding that he was granted an adequate opportunity to defend himself. Learned counsel further submitted that the Board having notified petitioner's result on 24-12-1979 was left with no legal authority to recall or amend the result under rule 6.2 and even the Special Disciplinary Committee was not properly constituted.
6. All these points were canvassed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the High Court and those have been rejected by him for the reasons that "at the time of his personal appearance (on 2-2-1980) he was duly confronted by the Committee with all the 10 answer-books an the other relevant record which fact is noted by the Committee in its order to dated the 6th April. 1980.The petitioner was also supplied a Questionnaire to fill in, which he accordingly filled in the answers". It was on the basis of this material available on the record that the Special Disciplinary Committee gave the finding against the petitioner. The High Court has rightly held that the Board was competent in law to recall the results which were initially notified by the Gazette Notification dated 24-12-1979 and since no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the fact that his case was dealt by a three-member Committee instead of two-member Committee the plea as to the constitution of the Committee was of no consequence.
7. In any case, no exception can be taken with the view that prevailed with the learned Single Judge in the High Court in refusing to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution on the ground that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands.
8. For these reasons there is no merit in this petition, it is dismissed in limine.