' The facts are that the petitioner appeared under Roll No,11480 in the Intermediate (Aut)
Examination, 1975 in Humanitarian Group, held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and as per declaration of the result published in the Gazette dated 10-1-1976, he was shown to have passed by securing 413 marks. On the basis of this result he then appeared in the B.A.Examination of the Punjab University and passed the same in Second Division. In view of his qualification the petitioner was selected as a Naib-Tehsildar in the year 1978, and is still in service.
2. While he was posted under the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, the latter, received a communication dated 5-10-1985 from the Controller of Examinations of the Respondent-Board that the petitioner had failed in the Intermediate Examination but showed himself as successful by interpolation in the record. A request was made to the Deputy Commissioner, to direct the petitioner to return to the Board his original certificate, whereby he was shown to have passed the Intermediate Examination.
3. This decision of the Board was challenged by the petitioner through writ petition No,4937/85, but, this petition was disposed of on 17-11-1986 having fructified, as the Board agreed to withdraw the impugned order and pass a fresh one after hearing the petitioner. Accordingly he was heard, but the Board's fresh decision as well went against the petitioner. The order passed by the Chairman of the Board, in this behalf, was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17-2-1987 (Annexure 'D') whereby the certificate issued to him was cancelled. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court again.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. Rule 18 of Chapter 5 of the Rules appearing in the Board's Calendar, Vol. II, Revised 2nd Edition, 1984, is attracted for adjudication of the controversy arising in this case. In so far as this Rule is relevant to this case is reproduced below:- "The Board shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared:
(1) if he/she has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination; or,
(2) if a mistake is found in his/her result; or,
(3) if it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination; or,
(4) for Fraud, Forgery and Impersonation that may be determined by the Board: ' Provided that the orders of quashing the result is issued not later than four years from the date of declaration of the result of the examination concerned: Providedfurtherxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx/txxxxxxxxxxxx."
' It is not disputed that the petitioner's result was notified on 10-1-1976. Thus, even if some forgery was committed as per Rule aforesaid the power to cancel his result lasted with the Board for a period of four years, expiring on 9-1-1980. In this view of the matter, the cancellation of his certificate vide letter dated 5-10-1985 or for that matter dated 17-2-1987, is without lawful authority.
5. The learned counsel for the Board, however, came forth with the plea that the Rules were amended and power conferred on the Chairman to quash the result even after the expiry of four years, but he had to concede that this amendment in the Rules was brought long after the accrual of right to the petitioner under Rule 18 ibid. The amended provision, cannot be used retrospectively to the detriment of the petitioner.
6. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the Board obliquely pressed another argument that limitation is not a bar for quashing the result founded on fraud, but, such a spacious proposition cannot be extended to the case in hand. The Board is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and is bound by its Rules. Without going into the question of fraud, which the petitioner vehemently denies, the declaration of his result, in contemplation of the Rules, had become a past and closed transaction and created a legal right in his favor. It, therefore, could not be cancelled after the expiry of period o four years.
7. In view of the above, this writ petition is accepted with cost and the impugned order declared to have been passed without an lawful authority and as of no legal effect.