ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No.79/84 filed by Nadeem and Civil Appeal No.80/84 filed by his brother Naeem Ahmad.
2. The facts, briefly, are that to brothers (Nadeem Ahmad and Naeem Ahmad appellants) appeared in the Intermediate Examination in 1978 (Spring) from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, and were declared successful. They secured 477 and 468 marks respectively. Thereafter, both of them appeared in 1979 (Spring) examination held by Rawalpindi Board under Roll Nos. 5733 and 3734 respectively as fresh candidates, though they were not eligible as such. Both of them in their permission forms of the examination of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi, did not disclose that they had already passed the F.Sc.
Examination earlier from the Sargodha Board, though Column No.7 of the said form placed a duty upon them to mention the same. Both the applicants succeeded only in three papers and the remaining papers were cleared by them through a further attempt in 1980 (Autumn) Examination from the same Board i.e. Rawalpindi Board.
They then applied for admission to the First Year in the M.B.,B.S. In the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, for the Session 1981-82. Their applications for admission were accompanied by usual affidavits relating, inter alia, to the number of attempts made by them in passing the F.Sc.
Examination. They were thereupon given provisional admission to the first year in the said College.
3. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi, however, issued notices to both of them on 9-8-1980 and 16-1-1981. The first notice was regarding the use of unfair means in the examination and the second notice was with respect to the concealment in their permission forms for the Intermediate Examination held in 1979 by the Rawalpindi Board, wherein they did not disclose that they had already appeared and passed the F.Sc. Examination from the Sargodha Board. The appellants challenged these notices before the civil Courts at Gujrat and got ex parte decree in their favour from the trial Court at Gulrat and the appeals of the Rawalpindi Board were dismissed on the ground that the court-fee worth Re. l had been paid on the copy of the impugned decree instead of Rs.2. These decisions of the appellate court were challenged through revision petitions before the Lahore High Court at Lahore where the petitions have been admitted to regular hearing and notices have been issued to the present appellants, The Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore, also cancelled their provisional admissions, vide order dated 30-3-1983, on the ground that in their affidavits they had not mentioned the correct number of attempts made by them in passing the F.Sc. Examination, inasmuch as they had not disclosed the attempts made by them in 1979 (Spring) Examination. Another ground of cancellation of their provisional admissions was that they were not entitled to appear as fresh candidates in the 1979 (Spring) Examination from Rawalpindi Board, as they had already passed the Intermediate Examination from the Sargodha Board in 1978.
4. The appellants filed to separate writ petitions challenging the cancellation of their provisional admissions by the Principal King Edward Medical College, before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which were dismissed vide order, dated 12-4-1983. They then filed Intra-Court Appeals which to met the same fate.
Feeling aggrieved they filed to separate petitions for leave to appeal before this Court.
5. The main contention raised by them was that in appearing twice in the F.Sc. Examination from the Rawalpindi Board (i.e. Taking the examination in parts) they did not infringe any rules. They also denied having made any concealment in their affidavits filed by them. Leave was thereupon granted to them to consider these questions vide order, dated 6-2-1984.
6. Before us the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that although according to rule 17 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, which allows only one chance to a candidate to improve his position and urged that taking the said examination (F.Sc.) in to parts from the Rawalpindi Board, in fact, constituted only one examination:
7. We are, however, of the view that for decision of this case it is not necessary to go into the questions as to whether or not any rules were infringed.
It is clear front the copies of the affidavits filed by the appellants before the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi, that tries had purposely suppressed the fact that they had already appeared in the same examination from the Sargodha Board. They had made similar suppressions in their affidavits filed by them for admission to the Kind Edward Medical College, Lahore. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was justified in dismissing their writ petition as well as their I.C.As, because being a discretionary jurisdiction, the Courts have always refrained from issuing writs in favour of persons who do not come with clean hands. The same view was taken in a similar case in Muhammad Ashraf Qadri v. Principal, King Edward Medical College, etc. PLD 1982 SC 131 wherein while refusing leave it was observed by this Court that: "Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary. It should not be exercised in favour of a person with unclean hands. The petitioner tried to seek admission to a medical college by making misrepresentations; even if the motive, as now contended by his learned counsel to seek further education and that to for adopting an honourable profession was laudable, the means adopted in that behalf were such that on account of which the person concerned would disentitle himself to any relief in discretionary; writ jurisdiction of the High Court..."
This view was followed in a similar case, namely, Principal, Kind Edward Medical College, Lahore v.
Ghulam Mustafa etc. 1983 SCM R 196. In this case, to, it was found that the student had filed a false affidavit and it was held that his writ petition ought to have been dismissed by the High Court. The above-mentioned observations in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Qadri were relied upon and it was further observed that the respondent (student) had through misrepresentation and with intent to make wrongful gain of a particular type laid basis for defrauding authorities concerned if and when a chance arose".
In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the to appeals which are consequently dismissed.