MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--The instant Intra Court Appeal, Intra Court Appeal No.3 of 1989 Intra Court Appeal No. 8 of 1988 Intra Court Appeal No.9 of 1988 and Intra Court Appeal No.10 of 1988 have been filed by the Punjab Board of Technical Education, Lahore (which shall hereinafter be called a: Board) for the quashment of the orders dated 16-1-189, 15-2-1989, 3-12-198E and 1.7-12-1988 pronounced by the learned Judge in Chamber, who had quashed the order of the Board regarding the annulment of two papers, namely Shorthand-A and Typewriting-B of the C.Com. And D.Com.
Classes of the Government Commercial Training Institute AhmadPur East. All the ICAs are being decided by means of this single judgment.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the Board conducted the annual examination of C.Com. And D.Com. Classes for the year 1988 at Ahmadpur East Centre. Pursuant to the adverse reports received from the Inspection Squad and other quarters with regard to the employment of unfair means by the candidates the Board held its meeting on 10-9-1988 and decided to cancel the aforementioned papers of the candidates appearing at Ahmadpur East Centre The Principal, Government Commercial Training Institute, Ahmadpur East was intimated this decision on 22-10-1988. The affected candidates filed writ petition against the impugned order of the Board. In Intra-Court Appeal No.3 of 1989, the result of four candidates, namely, Ijaz Arif, Fayyaz Arif, Masood Sadiq Hashmi and Muhammad Tahir was declared and they were held successful by the Board. Subsequently, their examination result was also annulled and they lodged successful constitutional petition before the learned judge in Chamber, which has also been assailed by the Board in Intra-Court Appeal No.3 of 1989.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Board has submitted that according to Rules-16 and 17 of the Conduct of Examination Rules of the Board, the Board was competent to cancel the examination held either in its entirety or part thereof. Rules-16 and 17 of the Conduct of Examination Rules of the Board read as under:- "Rule 16.--Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these rules, the Board shall have the power to (i) hold an additional examination in the same year for special reasons (ii) cancel the entire examination or part thereof, held at a particular centre if it is satisfied that the examination has not been held under proper conditions.
Rule 17.--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 one year from the date of declaration of result of the examination concerned."
4. Undoubtedly, the Board has the power to conduct an additional examination in the same year for special reasons and cancel the entire examination or part thereof, held at a particular centre if it is satisfied that the examination has not been held under proper conditions. But the words "special reasons" and under proper conditions have not been elaborated in the Rules. The Board is also empowered to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared according to the conditions set out in Rule-17 supra.
5. With reference to Sikandar Sadiq and others v. University of Peshawar and others PLD 1988 Supreme Court 638 the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted were not entitled to an opportunity to show cause or being heard in the matter and there were special reasons for the annulment of the examination in two papers. The learned Judge in Chamber has sufficiently distinguished the facts of the case embodied in this precedent and the facts of the instant case.
Suffice to say that in Sikandar Sadiq's case, there were ample reports of copying, cheating and use of unfair means and the daily reports of the supervisory staff had also convinced the University about the unfair means employed by the candidates and they were found copying and it was opined that the examination was found to be a farce. In the instant case, there was no evidence of copying, cheating and use of unfair means. So much so the Inspection staff had not visited the examination centre at all when it was conducted from 6-6-1988 to 15-6-1988. The invigilating staff did not make any report during this period. The Deputy superintendent of the Examination Hall made a complaint much after examination i.e. On 25th of June 1988 against the Principal and the invigilating raff which was taken exception to by the Board and an inquiry was held in which', io student was associated. The manner of inquiry by the Board was also defective. Although the Board was free from fetters and formalities of judicial trial, nevertheless it was not entitled to deprive the candidates of their valuable rights and privileges on mere conjectural grounds. The principle has been enunciated in Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another PLD 1971 Supreme Court 838.
6. In fact, there was a tussle between the Deputy Superintendent and the Principal and the invigilating staff. The Deputy Superintendent had made certain derogatory remarks about the centre and the invigilating staff which created bitterness. The posters were pasted in the City embodying the cartoon of the Deputy Superintendent which might have incensed him so much that he was compelled to make a complaint after the examination was held. Nobody was charge sheeted and none was asked to explain his position and after recording the statement of the Deputy Superintendent etc, a report was made which was mechanically accepted by the Board without going into the merits and demerits of the case.
7. The cardinal allegation against the students was that they were given more time by the invigilating staff for solving the impugned papers. Even if it be conceded that more time was granted to them, then there is no evidence on the file to show that the candidates were guilty of cheating or had employed unfair means. The question of copying in the papers of Typewriting and Shorthand does not arise at all. Since there is no evidence of the fact that the students had indulged in cheating or using unfair means, so they were unnecessarily penalized. They could not be victimised on account of the sharp differences between the Deputy Superintendent and the Principal of the Institution.
8. The mala fides of the Board is apparent from the fact that the result of four students was declared and the result of th other students was partly annulled. When the writ petition was being heard, it was pointed out to the Board that this anomaly in their conduct could not be reconciled, they acted under Rule-17 of the Conduct of Examination Rules of the Board and cancelled the result of four students, who were declared successful by the Board, without giving them an opportunity of being heard. It was obviously done to meet the requirement of law or to cloak the mala fides committed by the Board.
9. Adhering to Sikandar Sadiq's case reported as PLD 1988 Supreme Court 638, even if it be conceded that the candidates, whose examination was partly annulled, were not entitled to a show-cause notice or an opportunity of being heard, there is ample evidence of mala fides and the unpleasant tussle between the Deputy Superintendent on the one hand and the Principal of the Institution 'and the invigilating staff on the other hand which culminated in victimizing the said candidates. As stated supra, there is no evidence that the candidates had employed unfair means and were guilty of cheating.
10. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason for interference with the impugned judgments of the learned Judge in Chamber and dismiss all the Intra --Court Appeals with costs.
11. The appellant/Board is directed to declare the result of all the affected candidates, who are petitioners in the original writ petitions within ten days of this order.
H.B.T./P-88/L