1. ' HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.--This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, praying the following reliefs:
(1) Declare that action taken by the respondents on the basis of the findings, if any of the Unfair Means Committee is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(2) Direct the respondent to release the petitioner's result for the Intermediate Examination Parts I and II held in the year 1983.
(3) Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(4) Award costs of this petition.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was a regular student of Intermediate Science group at Jinnah Government College, Nazimabad and appeared in the Intermediate Science Examination Parts I and II in 1983 under Roll No 46714 at the Examination Centre of Tameer-e-Now Government Boys Secondary School, Nazimabad, Karachi. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the Part I examination along with his Part II examination to improve his result. The results of the examination were announced in 1980 and his result was withheld. The petitioner accordingly approached the respondents to find out the reasons for withholding his result but was not given any satisfactory reply. A show-cause notice dated 14-11- 1984 was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that all the scripts issued at the. Examination Centre had been replaced by the petitioner with other written scripts smuggled in. He was called upon to appear before the Committee for unfair means. The petitioner appeared before the Members of the Committee, he was directed to identify his scripts out of a number of scripts lying before him which the petitioner did. Thereupon the committee informed the petitioner that they had reasons to suspect that the scripts did not contain the petitioner's handwriting. The petitioner denied the allegations levelled against him and was asked to write down a paragraph in his own handwriting on a plain sheet of paper. The petitioner complied with the instructions and upon comparing the two handwritings, the committee had reasons to suspect that the scripts were not in the handwriting of petitioner. It has been averred that the petitioner was accordingly informed that a formal decision would be conveyed to him in due course. As he did not receive any reply the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent No,2. As no reply was received by the petitioner, he filed the above petition.
3. ' The respondents filed comments to the petition wherein it is stated that at the time of examination of scripts with several numbers printed on them are supplied to the Examination Centre and so also separate specific secret mark is put on the scripts for each Centre. When the script is handed over to a candidate in each of the paper, the number of the script is mentioned on the attendance sheet which is required to be signed by the candidate. After the question paper is solved the script is delivered to the invigilator concerned who forwards the same to the Centre Superintendent who in turn forwards the script to the Board. It has been averred that the petitioner was supplied scripts with special mark and numbers for each of the papers he asked for but it was found subsequently that the scripts returned by the petitioner were not the same that were supplied to him as they bore different special mark and serial numbers. The signatures on the scripts submitted by the petitioner do not tally with the signatures of the invigilators posted in the room concerned. It has been further averred that the petitioner appeared before the Unfair Means Committee and he identified his scripts from the face sheet of the scripts in presence of the Unfair Means Committee and after taking the specimen of Urdu and English handwriting of the petitioner, the same were compared with the handwriting in which the questions were solved and it was found that all the scripts were in the handwriting other than that of the petitioner. The committee unanimously found him guilty of using unfair means and his results were cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in the examination for the subsequent three years and he was allowed to appear in the examination to be held in 1987. The decision was duly communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 17-1-1981.
4. ' Mr. Akhtar Hussain has contended that the petitioner was not given fair opportunity to defend himself.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to present his case and there was sufficient evidence to sustain allegations.
6. ' We have carefully considered the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record which is made available by the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the case-law cited before us. We may observe here that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that an educational institution is neither required to act as a criminal Court nor is bound to follow the legal or procedural formalities of such a Court. The student who is being dealt with for misconduct or indiscipline, he is not to be treated as an ordinary criminal nor the authorities are to get the robes of police prosecuting agency. It was held in the case of Ahmed v. University of Engineering and Technology PLD 1981 SC 464 that "during the investigation and inquiries, preliminary or final, the attitude of all concerned is, not necessarily of adversaries and this should not become antagonistic. In such like cases, during the inquiry involving the student and other concerned persons, the method of questioning, and/or confrontation in a healthy atmosphere, would, neither be illegal nor improper procedure. They are in these cases beneficial aids in reaching correct conclusions".
7. ' In the instant case, it appears from the paradise comments, th minutes of the Unfair Committee and the scripts, the attendance sheet, that the decision does not appear to have been taken without affording: the petitioner an opportunity. The committee obtained his English and Urdu handwriting and compared the same with the written and found that the question papers solved by him are in somebody else handwriting. This is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction. The decision of the Committee is unexceptionable. The petitioner was afforded opportunity and the decision seems to be in accordance with, law. There is thus no force that the principle of natural justice has^ been violated in the present case.
8. ' In the circumstances of the case we find that the decision of the respondents is legal and cannot be declared to have been passe. Without lawful authority and accordingly the same cannot be quashed.
9. ' The petition was dismissed by a short order passed by us 12-3-1986 and the above are the reasons for the same.
10. ' The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no as to costs.