MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--The petitioner got admission in the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar in its session of 1980-81 after passing his F.Sc. (Medical Group) Examination in the year 1978. On 10-5-1983 the Principal of the Khyber Medical College respondent No.1 cancelled the admission of the petitioner consequent upon the cancellation order of the F.Sc Certificate of the petitioner issued by the Chairman, Board of Secondary Education respondent No.2 vide letter, dated 7-5-1983. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 155 of 1983 in the Peshawar High Court on the sole ground that the cancellation of F.Sc. Certificate and admission of the petitioner in the Medical College had been done without affording him any opportunity of being heard. The petition was accepted with the following observation: "The learned counsel for the parties appearing before us agree that for that reason this writ petition may be accepted in terms that the order made by respondent No. 2 cancelling the said certificates issued to the petitioner may be struck down and resultantly the order of respondent No.1 may also be struck down. The respondent No.2 shall, however, be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner again on the same grounds, after serving him with a notice which would contain all the facts and the material on the basis of which respondent No.2 may proceed to take action deemed appropriate in accordance with law and the rules. Any available legal defence would also be open to the petitioner during those proceedings. The petitioner shall also be served with notice on his home address as well as through the Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar, who when approached by respondent No.2, would get the notice served on the petitioner and then returned to respondent No.2. If the petitioner, who has by now sufficient notice of what the allegations may be against him because these allegations have to a great extent been spelled out in the written reply of respondent No.2 and have become clear from the documents placed by it on the record, would be well-advised to make himself available before respondent No.2 when a notice is served on him, and if he fails to appear before respondent No.2, he would be doing so at his own risk."
2. The Chairman of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education served the petitioner with a proper show-cause notice, dated 6-3-1984 on his home address, College address and through the Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation/ reply despite due service of the show-cause notice and the extension in the granted vide Board's Resolution No.11296/S/BISC, dated 26-7-1984. It was held by the Chairman that the petitioner had appeared as a regular student of Abbottabad Public School, in S.S.C. Examination, 1965 Annual under Roll No.10549, and had passed the said examination obtaining 375 marks. This fact had been concealed by the petitioner in his Writ Petition No.155/83. Thereafter the petitioner appeared as a regular student of Government College, Abbottabad, in the Intermediate Examination of 1967 Annual under Roll No. 442 but failed and was allowed to re-appear in three papers. He re-appeared in the said subjects in 1967 Supplementary Examination under Roll No. 270 but failed again. He appeared again in Intermediate Examination, 1968 Annual under Roll No. 405 and passed securing 399 marks. He then appeared in the Intermediate Examination, 1969 Annual under Roll No. 590 to improve his division but failed. Having concealed these facts the petitioner has forfeited his right to the admission to the Medical College and, therefore, the Board was constrained to quash the result of the petitioner of the Intermediate Examination, 1978 Supplementary under rule 17 of the Examination Rules (Chapter X of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Peshawar 1978 Edition) and cancelled the certificate issued to him. The petitioner filed writ petition against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the proceedings of cancelling the certificate of the petitioner by respondent No.2 and in pursuance to that, the cancellation of the admission of petitioner by respondent No.1 were entirely ex parte so far as the circumstances of this case are concerned. We have examined this point but it has not impressed a '. The petitioner has not denied the receipt of the show-cause notice bit through his letter (in reply to the said show- cause notice) he only asked for photostat copies of certain documents. In his reply he has not refuted the allegations made against him. The petitioner was duly served with the requisite show- cause notice on his own address as well as through the Principal of the College. Therefore, it cannot be maintained that the proceedings were ex parte in the case.
4. The next contention of the learned counsel is that responder, No.1 had no authority whatsoever to cancel the already granted admission to the petitioner and similarly respondent No.2 had no authority to cancel the petitioner's certificate as rule 17 of the Examination Rules (Chapter X of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Peshawar 1978 Edition), mentioned in the Notification is not applicable to the case of the petitioner because the impugned action was taken after the period of to years. Rule 17, referred to above, reads as follows:-- "The Board shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate 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, provided that the orders of quashing the result are issued not later than to years, from the date of declaration of result of the Examination concerned".
After hearing the learned counsel, notice was issued to the Advocate-General and since the matter related to admission of a student, therefore, the petition was converted into an appeal.
5. Show-cause notice, dated 6-3-1984 reveals the details of investigation conducted by the Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Peshawar wherein various documents showing concealment of true facts by the appellant are reiterated after the remand order by the High Court. In the show-cause notice it is mentioned that subsequent investigation conducted on his application form for improvement of Division in the Intermediate Examination 1980 (Annual) (which chance he had already availed in the Intermediate Examination, 1969 Annual) revealed that he, in order to secure permission for appearing in 1978 Intermediate Examination of the Board illegally concealed material facts regarding his S.S.C. Examination, 1965 (Annual) and the Intermediate Examinations, 1967 and 1969. He had also concealed certificates regarding completion of his Registration Number viz. 187/BI A-65. He supported his application form for the Intermediate Examination 1978 (Annual) with forged and fabricated Practicals in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Not only that but he also falsely asserted in the application form that he passed his S.S.C. Examination in 1974 (Annual) and submitted a forged and fabricated copy of S.S.C. Certificate of 1974 which was actually of a girl candidate named Tehmina Naz daughter of Assil Zada of No. 1 Government Girls High School, Peshawar Cantt., who had, in fact, appeared in the S.S.C. Examination, 1974 and was granted the S.S.C. Certificate in 1974.
Thereafter he made yet another attempt for improvement of his marks and appeared in the Intermediate Examination (Annual) 1980 under Roll No.2485 when he was charged for using unfair means and was disqualified. It was during this last-mentioned investigation that true facts regarding his past conduct were revealed. He was, therefore served with a notice to show cause before taking the disciplinary action against him. The proceedings against him, after issuance of the notice, were ex-parte. There after he moved the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition and challenged inter alia the action taken by the Board on the ground that he had not been duly served with a notice to show cause and was thus deprived of his right to be heard before the imposition of penalty upon him. The matter finally came up before the learned High Court in amended Writ Petition No. 155/83 which was heard on 22-1-1984 and it was decided that another chance to show cause may be given to him. Hence, the contention that the action was taken against him after the period of to years is not sustainable and, therefore, action taken against him is within the period specified in aforementioned rule 17. Besides the appellant's conduct is such that the learned Bench of the High Court rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of a person who had not come to the Court with clean hands. We agree with the finding of the learned High Court and consequently, dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.