1. ' IBADAT YAR KHAN, J.--The petitioner appeared in the Examina tions of the Higher Secondary Education for the Session of 1981. The results of this examination were declared in November, 1981.
2. He was declared passed and placed in "C" Grade obtaining 23 marks in Maths. Part-II and 81 marks in Maths. Part-I and a mark sheet was issued to the petitioner which is Annexure "D" to the petition dated 23-11-1981. The number of this marks certificate is 1832 from book No.19. The petitioner, it is alleged by Mr.Gul Bahar Korai, learned counsel for the petitioner, applied for rechecking of his results. It is alleged that the requisite fee of Rs.15 was deposited in the Habib Bank and a receipt was annexed to the application which was moved to the Board requesting for rechecking of the results. This application was filed on 23-11-81. It is alleged that the Board on receipt of this application rechecked the results of the petitioner and issued another certificate which is numbered as 2590 from book No.26. Under this revised marks certificate supplied to the petitioner he improved his position. He was shown to have secured 83 marks in Paper-II as against 23 which was shown in the earlier marks certificate No.1832. On the strength of this revised marks certificate the petitioner applied for admission in the Mehran Engineering University. The Authorities of the Mehran Engineering University sent this certificate to the Board for verification. The Board after checking from records replied back to say that this certificate was never issued by them, it does not bear the mark or seal or signatures of the Board and it was a forged document. The Board took cognizance of this misconduct on the part of the petitioner and tried to contact the petitioner but as he could not be served the Board published a public notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Disciplinary Action Sub-Committee of the Board on 6-3-1983 at 10-00 a.m. alongwith his marks certificate and other relevant documents issued by the Board. It was stated in the notice that: - .................................... This notice is issued in the papers as the candidates have failed to respond to the letters issued by this Office at their addresses available in this office as well as through their Principals.
3. ' In case they fail to appear before the Disciplinary Action Sub-Committee, their cases shall be decided ex parte."
4. ' This public notice was published in the daily "DAWN" dated 20-2-1983 and Urdu "JANG" dated 21-2- 1983. The petitioner appeared before the Disciplinary Action Sub-Committee and was given full hearing. His statement was recorded by the Disciplinary Action Sub-Committee. As a result of the finding the Disciplinary Action Sub-Committee issued a marks certificate which is dated 26th April, 1983 and this certificate is numbered as 5357, book No.54 and has been stamped by the Board as follows:- "Debrarred for three years; Eligible to appear in the year A-85 in all the papers of H.S.C. Parts I and II if otherwise eligible."
5. ' The petitioner feels aggrieved against this action of the Board and has filed this petition challenging its validity.
6. ' Notice were issued to respondents Nos.2 and 3 who are Controller of Examinations and Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education at Sukkur. These two respondents have filed their counter-affidavits on 13-8-83. All the adverse allegations made against the Board by the petitioner are denied. It would be proper to reproduce some paras. of this counter-affidavit to give an idea as to what is the thinking of the Board on the certificate which they are calling as forged.
7. Para. 11 is as follows:- "11. Para. 10 of the petition is not admitted. The petitioner had not applied for retotalling nor the respondent had ever issued certificate No.2590 Book 26 dated 24-2-1981. In fact, the first marks sheet No.1832 of Book No.19 dated 23-11-1981 (signed on 24-11-1981) was issued by the respondent and no certificate bearing No. 2590 of Book No. 26 as alleged in this para. had ever been issued by the respondent. It is respectfully submitted that the marks sheet No.2590 of Book No.26 is false and fabri cated, which neither bearing the signatures, stamp of the Controller of Examinations nor initial of Controller of Examinations (Secret) as the same has been forged and fraud has been committed by the petitioner in manufacturing the subsequent marks sheet No.2590 of Book No.26."
8. In reply to the contention that the Board was not competent to take this penal action the respondents have relied on the Rules regarding examination published in Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad 1970-71.These rules were framed under section 21 of the West Pakistan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Hyderabad Ordinance, 1961 (W.P. Ordinance No.17/61).
9. ' Mr.Mangi, learned counsel who appeared for respondents Nos.2 and 3 relied upon the following rules. Rule 22 of the rules regarding examinations is to the following effect:- "Rule 22. Quashing of Results,--The Board shall have the power to quash the result of a condidate wholly or partially after it has been declared in case:
(1) he is disqualified for using unfair means in the examination; or
(2) a substantial mistake is found in his result;
(3) it is found that he was not eligible to appear in the examination for any valid reason; or
(4) for any other adequate reason that may be determined by the Board: ' Provided that the orders of quashing the result are issued not later than three years from the date of the declaration of the result of the examination concerned;"
10. ' Further, separate rules have been framed for dealing with the cases of unfair means used at the examinations of the Board by the candidates. Mr.Mangi learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 made a special reference to the chain of rules starting from rule 10 to rule 16. Rule 11 may profitably be reproduced:- "11. If a candidate tampers with or forges any entry in a certi ficate or any other documents issued by the Board, he shall be deemed to have used unfair means. The Sub-Committee may cancel the documents in question or cancel his result or take such other action as it may deem necessary."
11. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that none of the elements' contained in the rule are present in the case of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel it is neither a case where the petitioner can be said to have "used unfair means in the examinations" nor a case where a substantial mistake is found in his result "nor" a case in which he has tampered with forged entries in the certificate and other documents issued by the Board as postulated by rule quoted above. The alleged manufacturing of document may be misconduct of a higher order but cannot be said to be forging the certificate which was issued by the Board. In the present case the allegation being that he completely prepared an altogether fresh certificate it could not be a case of "a candidate who tampers with or forges any entries in the certificate or in any other document issued by the Board. So the learned counsel contends. In other words there is misrepresentation and a forgery of a higher order it should be immune from any disciplinary action. As such the endorsement on the marks certificate debarring the petitioner for three years from appearing in any examination is without lawful authority.
12. ' The second leg of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he wanted to argue that these rules as they themselves indicate would be applicable to cases where the candidate has been guilty of any improper conduct during the examinations. The approach of the learned counsel is that once a certificate is issued to a candidate the chapter is closed so far as the Board is concerned unless it is found that there has been a tamperihg with the certificate by way of forgery, fictitious entries in place of genuine entries or in any other manner tampering with this particular document. In the present case there is no such allegation that certificate No.1832 has in any manner been tampered with, its entries in any way been forged, the figure 23 has been replaced by figure 83 in it. The Certificate which has been relied on by the petitioner for purposes of his admission in the Mehran Engineering University was at worst an attempt to use a bogus or manufactured document for purposes of getting advantage from the Mehran Engineering University. The petitioner failed in his attempt and suffered the consequences. So far as the Board is concerned at no time any attempt was made to make any representation to the Board or to take any advantage from the Board. As such the Board could not subject the petitioner to any disciplinary action. On the face of it this argument seems to be quite attractive but the fact is overlooked that the certificate on the strength of which the petitioner was roaming around seeking advantages carried a seal of the Board, the certificate itself was surreptitiously removed from Book No.26 from the records of the Board and but for this certificate the petitioner had no eligibility to apply for his admission in the Mehran Engineering University.
13. ' The petitioner has been awarded penalty of cancellation of his result at the Higher Secondary Certificate, Parts I & II, Annual Examina tion, 1981, and has also been debarred for three years from re-taking the examination on the ground that he had produced a forged marks certificate dated 24th November, 1981, at the Mehran Engineering University, Jamshoro, for obtaining admission there. He (lid admit before the Disciplinary Sub-Committee constituted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sukkur that he had presented the said certificate in the said University. Admittedly, the first marks certificate issued to him on 23-11-1981 recorded 23 marks in his Part-II in the Mathematics, whereas the certificate dated 24-11-1981 produced by him in the Mehran Engineering University reflected his marks in the same paper as 83. On verification of the record at the request of the said University, the Board found that the marks certificate dated 24-11- 1981 was forged one. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the suspected marks certificate dated 24-11-1981 was issued to him from the office of the Board on his applying for re- totaling of the marks. It is not denied that this marks certificate was issued on sheet No.2590 from Book No.26 preserved in the office of the Board. The first marks certificate dated 23-11-1981 was issued on sheet No.1832 from Book No.13. Surprisingly the second certificate issued on the second day was on a sheet from Book No.26. The Book No.26 was produced in Court. It was observed that this Book was put in use on 6-1-1982 i.e. after 43 days of the date of issuance of the suspected certificate, and it was exhausted by 8-2-1982. The counterfoil of the sheet bearing the suspected marks certificate is missing from the Book. It is obvious that the sheet carrying the suspected marks certificate was detached from Book No.26 when the Book was not in use and the marks certificate dated 24-11-1981 must have been procured by unfair means and does not seem to be a genuine document.
14. ' However, the question arises; whether the petitioner was amenable to the disciplinary action by the Board after his result had been announced and the marks certificate dated 23-11-1981 had been issued to him and he was liable for any disciplinary punishment for having procured subsequently the suspected certificate and produced it at the Mehran Engineering University for seeking admission there. Powers of the Board are enumerated in section 11 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad) Ordinance, 1961, whereunder it does have the power, vide clause No. VII of granting certificates and diploma to the candidates who have passed its examination and to withdraw such certificates and diplomas. Under rule 22 of the Rules regarding Examinations, the Board has the power to quash the result of a candidate, partially or wholly within three years after it has been declared in case.
(i) The candidate is disqualified for using unfair means.
(ii) a substantial mistake has been found in his result; or
(iii) it is found that he was not eligible to appear in the examination for any valid reason; or
(iv) for any other adequate reason that may be determined by the Board.
15. ' There are separate Rules regarding punishment for using unfair means at the examination of the Board. Rule 11 of the Rules regarding punish ment to the candidate for using unfair means at the examination of the Board provides that "if a candidate tampers with a forges any entry in a certificate or any other document issued by the Board, he shall be deemed to have used unfair means. The sub-committee may cancel the documents in question or cancel the result or take such other action as it may deem necessary". In our opinion, the procurement of the second certificate No.2590 dated 24-11-1981 by the petitioner in the manner outlined above, amounted to tampering with the genuine marks certificate issued on 23-11-1981 and the petitioner was guilty of having indulged in unfair means within the ambit of rule 11 reproduced above. The punishment awarded to the petitioner was within powers of the Dis ciplinary Sub-Committee and the Board. If at all, the preparation of a faked result sheet on a new paper was an aggravated form of forgery than tampering with the sheet issued by the Board.
16. ' The learned counsel have cited certain authorities reported in 1983 CLC 2394; 1983 SCMR 1024 and PLD 1984 Lah.
17. But none of them is relevant to the facts of this case. In the first case reported as Nasir Nazeer v.
17. Lahore Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, a candidate was penalized by the Board on the assumption that he must have influenced the examiner for awarding him marks more than he deserved. It was held that penalty was awarded on him without any tangible evidence of using unfair means and the order of the Board was held to be without lawful authority. But in the instant case there is clear case of tampering with the record of the Board as discussed above. In the case reported in 1983 SCMR 1024, cited as Muhammad Rafiq v. The Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education & others, it was held that civil Court did not have jurisdiction in a case of disciplinary action taken by the Board. No such question is involved in the instant case. In the third case, which is reported in PLD 1984 Lah. 17 a candidate had not disclosed, while seeking admission in a Medical College, that he had passed the examination in second attempt and he was subjected to disciplinary action by the Board. It was held that the candidate had not committed any fraud and he was not liable to disciplinary action. In this case, on his own showing he used certificate No.2590 which admittedly found its way into the hands of the petitioner through surreptitious means and so much so that the seal of the Board and signatures of the Controller of Examinations were affixed in it to impart this document a colour of genuineness and reality. There was clear evidence of fraudulent action of the petitioner relating to the record of the Board and he was liable to disciplinary action.
18. ' For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the petition and accordingly dismiss it with costs.