' This will dispose of W.P. Nos. 2098, 2303 and 2347 of 1992.
2. The petitioners in these petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution were candidates at the Intermediate Examination Annual, F.Sc., Medical (Old Course), 1992, conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, D.G. Khan, one of the papers at the examination being Biology '13' Old Course, which was scheduled for 9-5-1992. On 19-5-1992, the Controller of Examinations, Ghulam Rasool Atish, lodged F.I.R. No,92 at the P.S. B-Division, D.G. Khan under Section
(VII) 3(32) of the Secondary Educational Malpractices Act, 1950, alleging that the Biology 'B' Paper had been leaked out. The petitioners received notices from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, D.G. Khan (to be referred to as the Board), informing them that the Paper had been cancelled and that they should re-appear in the said Paper on 15-7-1992. It is by these notices that the petitioners are aggrieved. In W.P. Nos.2303 and 2347 of 1992 the prayer also is that the requirement that the petitioners should re-appear in the said Paper is without lawful authority.
The respondents are also sought to be restrained from holding examination in that Paper again.
3. It is maintained that the students have no access to the question papers at any stage commencing from the setting of the papers till their distribution in the examination hall and the cancellation of the paper "is absolutely ununderstandable", that as the petitioners "had not come across the alleged question papers", they are being deprived of "their fruits of labour without any legal justification" and that the responsibility for the leakage, if any, was that of the officials of the Board and the petitioners cannot be punished. It is maintained further that the petitioners were not heard before the papers were cancelled; they had a vested right for the declaration of the result and there is no justification in law for the cancellation of the paper.
4. The respondents, the Chairman, and the Controller of Examinations the Board have filed parawise comments. Shortly stated their case is that at about 2-30 p.m. on 2-5-1992, an Associate Professor of Government College, D.G. Khan, met the Chairman of the Board, Ch. Irshad Ahmad, and informed him of a rumour in the city that the paper had been leaked. On 8-5-1992, at about 11- 00 a.m. the Professor was informed on telephone by an unknown person that the paper had "leaked out prematurely", adding that "the said Professor should contact Tanvir Photostat, D.G.
Khan". On the morning of 9-5-1992, when he woke up, he found a question paper lying inside the door of his courtyard, it was Biology 'B' paper. The Professor informed the Chairman, Dr. Irshad Ahmad Chaudhry, of what had come to his notice; consequently, the Chairman went to the house of the Professor at 7-00 a.m. and received the question paper. Thereafter, the Chairman went to the office of the Controller of Examinations and then to the Officer, Confidential Press of the Board.
The paper was sealed and when the examination started, it was found that the paper was the same, as had been handed over to the Chairman by the Professor. It is stated further that the preliminary inquiry was held and it was found that the students had been obtaining the question paper "by means of different sources".
5. With the comments have been attached Annexures A and B.Annexure A is a copy of the statement made by Mirza Naseer Ahmad, Associate Professor, Govt. College, D.G. Khan, in the inquiry held by the Board and Annexure B is a copy of the statement made by Dr. Irshad Ahmad Chaudhry, Chairman of the Board, in that inquiry. Annexure C consists of cuttings from a newspaper; one of the news items was that the paper had leaked out.
6. The principal question is whether the Board was Competent to cancel the paper and to require the petitioners to re-appear in the paper. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to rule 23, as contained in Chapter V of the Calendar of the Board. That rule reads: "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 the examination held at a particular centre if it is satisfied that the examination has not been held under proper conditions. Provided that there shall be no re-examination in case of walk out at any centre."
7. ~~Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this rule does not give power to the Board to cancel one paper and to hold additional examination for the same. In any case, the words "proper conditions" in rule 23 do not cover a case like this. I am unable to agree. The rule empowers the Board to hold an additional examination for special reasons. This necessarily implies the cancellation of a paper, for unless a paper is cancelled, there can be no additional examination in it. The words "special reasons" are very wide words and I cannot conceive that the leakage of a paper is not a special reason. There is then power in the Board to cancel the entire examination .
Indeed if there is power to cancel the entire examination, there is also power to cancel one of the papers, for the greater includes the lesser. I must also discountenance the contention that the expression "proper conditions" cannot include a case, in which there has been leakage of the paper. One cannot conceive of a condition more proper for cancellation than where a paper has leaked out before the examination time. When a paper has leaked out, the necessary condition of secrecy of the paper is violated and there can be no question that the examination in which a paper has leaked out is no more than a farce. The truth, of the matter being that the paper had leaked out before the examination time and the Board was satisfied that this had happened, the necessary conditions for the application of rule 23 were all satisfied. In such cases, the doctrine of "natural justice", which seems to be mesmerizing people at the moment has, in my judgment, no application at all. To countenance the plea that each individual candidate at the examination was entitled to a hearing would amount' to over-judicializing the inquiry which the Board is competent to make under rule 23 in order to be satisfied that the examination has not been held under! "proper conditions", which expression should, in my opinion, mean that it has been marred by malpractices, the leakage of a paper being undoubtedly a' malpractice of the gravest nature, so grave indeed that it makes a mockery of the entire examination system.~~
8. For these reasons, I would dismiss the petitions but would leave the parties to bear their own costs.
9. Before closing, I should mention that learned counsel for the respondents gave an undertaking that there will be fresh examination of all those candidates who had not sat at the examination, which was held on 15-7-1992 and that the re-examination will be held within about three weeks' time.