1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---This appeal by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha (hereinafter to be referred as the Board), is by leave of this Court.
2. ' Facts pertaining to this case have been mentioned and discussed elaborately in the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9-3-1977. Nevertheless, those have to be mentioned at the cost of repetition.
3. ' In the year 1970, Shahid Latif, respondent in this appeal, appeared in the annual Intermediate Examination of Sargodha Board. His Roll Number was 14181 which was given by the Board. On 12-9- 1970, he was declared successful. He obtained 724 marks. This was notified in the Result Gazette.
4. ' On the basis of the marks referred to above, he applied for admission in the King Edward Medical College, Lahore. Alongwith the admission form he attached provisional certificate issued by the Principal, Government Degree College, Lyallpur, as well as detailed marks certificate. In the former the Principal had certified that he had obtained 724 marks. The latter was also to the same effect.
5. He got admission in the First Year of M.B.,B.S. Course for the session 1970-71. Thereafter he started attending the classes.
6. ' The normal practice of the King Edward Medical College is to verify marks obtained by the candidates from the respective Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education. Accordingly the College Authorities made enquiries from the Board. The Administrator, King Edward Medical College was informed that as a matter of fact the respondent had secured 629 marks and not 724 and that the detailed marks certificate was not genuine.
7. ' Accordingly, on 10-3-1971, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent by the Principal, King Edward Medical College wherein it was mentioned that actually he had secured 629 marks in F.Sc.
8. Pre-medical instead of 724 and that the marks mentioned in his admission application were false.
9. Similarly, the detailed marks certificate and the provisional certificate of F.Sc. Were not genuine.
10. ' The respondent was further informed that as such he could not remain on the rolls of the college and his admission was to be cancelled. He was also accused of making misrepresentation and misstatement of marks.
11. ' It was further mentioned that in case the reply was not received within the stipulated period, the respondent shall be proceeded ex parte; name struck off and legal action taken against him as well as his father.
12. ' On 17-3-1971, the respondent sent a reply. He informed the Principal that he had taken up the matter with the Board and would intimate him as soon as the reply was received from the Board and meanwhile no action be taken against him.
13. ' On 16-3-1971, the respondent received another show-cause notice/charge sheet. This time it was from the Controller of Examinations of the Board which was to the effect that he obtained admission in the King Edward Medical College on the basis of bogus detailed marks certificate and why his case be not handed over to the police for taking legal action. The respondent was required to send his reply within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice otherwise it would be deemed that he had nothing to say and he would be proceeded ex parte.
14. ' On 29-3-1971, detailed reply was sent in which the respondent denied the allegations and stated, "Taking the detailed marks certificate honestly to be a genuine and true document I submitted the same to the K.E. Medical College authorities for seeking admission in the college".
15. ' The respondent finally requested that "the aforesaid explanation will satisfy your honour with regard to my innocence and in all fairness your honour would withdraw the show-cause notice and be pleased to take such action which does not harm my interest and disturb my present admission to King Edward Medical College as my dislocation at the present juncture would evidently spell complete ruin to my career and that too without any fault of mine."
16. ' Matter did not conclude here. On 19-3-1971, the Administrator, King Edward Medical College issued another show-cause notice to the respondent whereby he was required to send a reply to the earlier notice by the Administrator dated 10-3-1971 and not to get the matter postponed on any pretext otherwise his name was to be struck off. He was again warned that action shall be taken against him as well as his father.
17. ' The respondent replied that he was already in touch with the Controller and that the Administrator would be informed the moment he heard from the Controller of Examinations. Nevertheless, he denied to have misstated the facts.
18. ' Thereafter on 13-5-1971 two show-cause notices were sent to the respondent. Both were from the Controller of Examinations of the Board. In the first it was mentioned that the detailed marks certificate with serial number 234 of book No,4, was spurious and contained forged signatures of the Assistant Controller and the initials of the officials of the Certificate Section were also not genuine and that the certificate had not been issued by the office.
19. ' The respondent was required to intimate as to how, in what manner and source he received the detailed marks certificate. He was given fifteen days' time for the reply otherwise his case was to be handed over to the police for necessary investigation.
20. ' Once again he pleaded not guilty to the allegations and stated that he had nothing to do with the internal affairs of the Board and that he was to rely on the Result Gazette, detailed marks certificate and the provisional certificate. He mentioned in his reply that he was one of the most brilliant students which fact could be verified from the institution where he had studied. Hi the Matriculation Examination he got scholarship. He submitted that in case an enquiry was to be held then all the witnesses should be examined in his presence so that he could cross-examine them.
21. ' In the second notice of the same date, the Board took entirely a different stance which was that by means of a clerical mistake the entry of marks against the name of the respondent in the result statement conveyed to the Principal, Government College, Lyallpur as well as in the Result Gazette was erroneously shown to be 724. The respondent was therefore required to show cause why the entry in the result statement and the Result Gazette be not rectified according to the result sheet.
22. ' On 24-5-1971, while all this was going on, the respondent was informed by the Principal, King Edward Medical College that his admission had been cancelled on the ground of filing a bogus certificate and that all the dues were forfeited.
23. ' Respondent impugned the aforesaid order of the Principal, King Edward Medical College by means of a Constitution Petition (W.P. 667/71) in the Lahore High Court. This was admitted to regular hearing. The High Court permitted the respondent to continue with his studies in the college.
24. ' Pending the aforesaid petition, the respondent filed another writ petition (W.P. No,617/72) wherein he challenged the action of the Controller of Examinations of the Board by means of which enquiry proceedings had commenced against him so as to quash the result of the respondent. The relief sought was that the enquiry was not being held in accordance with rules prescribed therefor and that he was entitled to be represented by a lawyer which right he was being denied by the Board.
25. ' The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court. The respondent filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Judge. That was dismissed as having become infructuous because by then a final order had been passed by the Board on 25-7-1973. By means of this order, it was notified that the actual marks of Roll Number 14181 were 629 and not 724.
26. ' This led to the filing of another writ petition (W.P. 1545/73) in which the notification showing the marks of the respondent as 629 was impugned. This petition was admited to regular hearing.
27. ' The respondent prayed for interim relief which was to the effect that his studies should not be interrupted. The request was granted.
28. ' Finally, the respondent filed another writ petition (W.P. 1647/76). In this the relief sought was that as he had been given the roll number to appear in the Final Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination, he be not stopped from appearing in the Final examination.
29. ' All these petitions were decided by means of the impugned judgment. All of them were accepted.
30. The Board assailed the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9-3-1977 by means of petition for leave to appeal. Leave was granted to consider two points first the application and construction of para 18 of Chapter 5 of the Calendar. Secondly, whether his appearance before the enquiry committee was due compliance of providing him with a reasonable opportunity of being heard or was he entitled to a further hearing by the Board.
31. ' Learned counsel appearing for the Board reiterated the same points and same contentions which had been raised before the High Court.
32. ' His main emphasis was that the action against the respondent was taken by the Board itself.
33. Hence it was by a competent authority which possessed the necessary power to proceed in the matter.
34. ' Learned counsel contended that the respondent was provided proper and reasonable opportunity to plead his case. He was duly heard. At no stage his case was prejudiced in any manner before any authority and as such the action taken against the respondent was with lawful authority.
35. ' This contention has no force. As is evident from para. 16 of the impugned judgment, the stance of the Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore, was, "Ch. Muhammad Anwar, Advocate, for the Principal, K.E. Medical College, admitted that the action of the Principal, K.E.Medical College, in cancelling the admission of the petitioner on 24-5-1971 was based on the information supplied by the Controller of Examinations of the Board. He very fairly conceded that if this Court found that the information supplied by the Board could only be acted upon after a proper inquiry had been held to establish the same, the action of the Principal in cancelling the admission of the petitioner would not be proper and legal."
36. ' It is, therefore, obvious that the Principal took action against the respondent on the information supplied by the Board. Hence, it is necessary to examine whether action of the Board was with or without lawful authority whether it suffered from any legal loophole or was in accordance with law, rules and principles of natural justice.
37. ' In this connection para. 18 of Chapter 5 of the Calendar of the Board is relevant:- "18. 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 any other reason that may be determined by the Board: ' Provided that the order of quashing the result is issued not later than four years from the date of declaration of the result of the examination concerned.
38. ' Provided further................................
39. ' Provided further that no result of any candidate will be quashed without issuing a show-cause notice to the candidate and giving him/her an opportunity to defend himself/herself."
40. Admittedly, the result of the respondent was quashed on an enquiry held by a Committee consisting of two persons. The respondent was heard by the Committee. He was not provided with an opportunity of hearing by the Board before action of the Committee was approved.
41. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has not shown us any document or notification whereby the Board had delegated its powers in this particular respect to any committee. This particular aspect was dealt with earlier in the Constitution Petition No,617/72 filed by the respondent whereby proceedings against him by the enquiry committee had been challenged. MrJustice Shafiur Rahman (as he then was) observed:- "There is no question of delegation of power for the power to take action has not been delegated to the committee but it has been asked to make a report so that the competent authority i,e. The Board takes appropriate steps and passes the necessary orders......... "
42. Hence, it is obvious that the final order was to be passed by the Board and, therefore, it became mandatory to hear the respondent so that he could plead his case and put forward his point of view before any action could be taken against him.
43. ' Leaving aside the legal position discussed above, even otherwise, every thing seems to be in hotchpotch. Notices after notices had been issued by the Board as well as by the Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore. This shows that the authorities were not definite as to what proper and legal action was to be taken against the respondent.
44. Case against the respondent started with the allegation that he had filed a "spurious certificate".
45. Subsequently the Board changed its stance and made it a case of rectifying a clerical error.
46. ' This reflects upon the working of the Board; shows lack of proper administration and control.
47. ' For the foregoing reasons we don't find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.
48. ' No costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.