' These Review Petitions Nos.31, 32 and 33 of 1994 raise common questions of fact and law, therefore, these are disposed of by this one judgment.
2. Petitioners Miss Sajida Parveen in Review Petition No,31/94 and Miss Fariha Gillani in Review Petition No33/94 were the students of third year M.B.,B.S.. Class in the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar while petitioner Irfanullah in Review Petition No,32/94 was the student of fourth year M.B.,B.S.. Class in the same College. It transpired that they had secured first year M.B.,B.S. Admission in the College on the basis of forged and fake Detailed Marks Certificates. They were therefore, served with show-cause notices and resultantly their admissions were cancelled by means of separate letters dated 4-7-1993. Upon this the petitioners filed separate civil suits in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar. Alongwith the plaints they also filed applications for interim relief, namely, suspension of the orders cancelling their admissions. The applications were rejected by order dated 27-7-1993. Against this order, the petitioners were to file appeals in the District Court, but as the Court of District Judge was closed due to summer vacation, they filed revision petitions in this Court. The applications for interim relief were, however, rejected by a learned Single Judge by order dated 8-8-1993.
3. This order was assailed in petitions for special leave to appeal in Supreme Court whereby order dated 5-9-1993 interim relief was granted to the petitioners, but on 20-10-1993 that order was recalled in the following circumstances.
4. The Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court summoned Mr. Ljaz Muhammad Siddiqi, Administrative Officer, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar, to verify from him. Whether the Detailed Marks Certificates produced by the petitioners to the College Authorities at the time of their admission as First Year M.B.,B.S. Students in the College were genuine or were forged and fake.
5. On 20-10-1993, his statement was recorded with reference to the record of the Board in his possession. As a result of his statement, it came to light that the Detailed Marks Certificates were not genuine, but they were forged and fake. Consequently, the interim order passed on 5-9-1993 was recalled with direction that the matter would come up for further proceedings in the light of orders already passed on 20-10-1993. The proceedings led to the recall of the interim order dated 20-10-1993 have been reported in 1994 SCM R 342 which may be reproduced:--
"SHAFIUR REHMAN, J.---Pursuant to our order dated 12-10-1993 Mr. Ijaz Muhammad Siddiqui, Administrative Officer of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar appeared and his statement has been recorded on solemn affirmation by reference to the original record which he has brought."
2. The learned counsel representing the petitioners (Mr. Abdul Hakim Kundi, Advocate) is not hi attendance in spite of an actual date having been given nor is there any formal application explaining his absence. Mr. Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record is, however, present to state that he was indisposed. He is allowed to see the record and cross-examine the witness."
3. In view of the record examined by us the interim order passed on 5-9-1992 in C.P.LA. 211-P/1993, order dated 20-9-1993 passed in C.P.LA. No,220-P/1993 and the order dated 22-9-93 passed in C.P.LA. No,223-P/93 are recalled.
4. To come up for further proceedings in the light of orders already passed on 12-10-1993.
Statement of Mr. Ijaz Muhammad Siddiqui, Administrative Officer, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar, on solemn affirmation.
' I have brought the original result sheet registers, two in number, containing the results of all the candidates appearing at the Annual Examinations (Pre-Medical Group) of 1989 and 1991. According to this record, Muhammad Irfanullah Khan appeared with Roll No,51676 and obtained total 554 marks at the examination. The marks sheet bearing No,50384 was issued on 22-6-1993. Another certificate may be for reverification issued on 26-7-1993 with Serial No,50367.
' Sajida Parveen appeared with Roll No,30162 in the Examination of Pre-Medical Group of 1991.
According to the Register and the record she obtained 691 marks in all. Certificate Serial No,50350 dated 22-6-1993 followed by another Serial No,50370 dated 26-7-1993 was issued in her name.
' S. Fariha Gillani appeared with Roll No,31041 and obtained total marks 624 and was issued certificates Nos.50349 dated 22-6-1993 and No,50369 dated 26-7-1993. xxxxx by Court.
' If there is an application for recounting or rechecking of the marks (M) obtained by a candidate then on mistake being found the correction is first made in these registers. Thereafter, a correction notification of the result issues and finally the certificate incorporating the corrected marks is issued. I have checked the registers and the entries therein and find that no such correction was made with regard to these marks.
' I have seen in Court the original certificate which was filed by Irfanullah Khan in the Medical College. It bears Serial No,3376 and the total marks obtained by him are shown to be 799. It bears no date.
' The serial No, of the certificate submitted by S. Fariha Gillani in the Khyber Medical College is 110239. In this certificate the total marks obtained by her are shown to be 789. There is no date of the preparation and issue of this certificate also.
' I have seen also the certificate submitted by Sajida Parveen in the Medical College for seeking admission therein. Its serial No, is 105162. The total marks obtained by her are shown to be 791. The date of issue or preparation of this certificate is also not recorded. Xxxxx (By Mr. Abdul Hamid Qureshi, counsel for S. Fariha Gillani).
' A certificate is issued to the various colleges to which the candidates belong. After that, if any further attested copies are asked for, then an entry is made with regard to it in the register. With regard to the first copy i,e,, sent to the Colleges concerned no entry exists in the register. There is no register maintained of the applications received for reverification of the results. However, as explained earlier, where corrections are to be made on reverification, necessary entries are made in the registers and results re-notified and the revised certificates issued to the candidates."
6. As in the light of the above, very naturally they could not expect success in their petitions for Special Leave to Appeal, rather they conceived some adverse consequences, they sought withdrawal of the petitions for Specia Leave to Appeal, therefore, the same were dismissed as such.
7. It may be stated that during the pendency of the above petitions for special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court, very strangely the petitioners had also filed appeals in the Court of District Judge against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar dated 27-7-1993. This order, as mentioned above, was maintained by this Court and the revision petitions of the petitioners were dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeals also dismissed the appeal by order dated 28-6-1994. This order too was challenged before this Court by the petitioners in revision petitions for the second time. The former Chief Justice who heard the revision petitions dismissed the same by order dated 2-10-1994. It is shocking to observe that the learned counsel for the petitioners withheld the above proceedings in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while the former Chief Justice was hearing his arguments in the revision petitions.
8. Notwithstanding the above circumstance, the petitioners feel advised to file the present review petitions for the review of the aforesaid order dated 2-10-1994.
9. Learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision dated 26-4-94 of a learned Division Bench of this Court at Abbotaabad Circuit Bench in the case of "Miss Aniqa Jalal v.
Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad" (W.P. No,43 of 1993). He submitted that no difference or distinction can be drawn between the case of Miss Aniqa Jalal and the case of the petitioners.
He urged that as the above writ petition of Miss Aniqa Jalal was allowed by a learned Division Bench of this Court at Abbottabad Circuit Bench, the law laid down in the order under review, according to him, is not consistent with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Miss Aniqa Jalal. His submission, therefore, is that the decision of the Division. Bench in the case of Miss Aniqa is to be followed in the case of the present petitioners as a matter of course.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the grounds of revision petitions he had cited the aforesaid case of Miss Aniqa Jalal decided by the Division Bench, the relief part of which, according to him, was upheld by the Supreme Court while granting leave to appeal, but the former Chief Justice hearing the revision petitions as Single Judge did not look into the same and refused relief to the petitioners.
12. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, but I do not see any force in the same.
13. The learned Division Bench of this Court at Abbottabad Circuit Bench had not decided the case of Miss Aniqa Jalal on merit, therefore, neither any law was examined nor any law was propounded by the learned Judges of the Division Bench in their decision. The learned counsel has misconceived the position obtaining in the case of Miss Aniqa Jalal which we will presently discuss.
14. What happened in the case of Miss Aniqa Jalal was that before the learned Judges of the Division Bench at Abbottabad Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khan, Advocate for respondent No,1 (Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad) made the following statement:-- "I have spoken to Professor Abdul Khaliq Khan, Vice-Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad who has informed me that the petitioner has appeared into the 1st professional examination and is studying in the second year. The admission of any other student would not be affected if she is allowed to continue her studies."
15. In view of this, the learned Division Bench recorded the following order:-- "As per statement of Ghulam Mustafa Khan Awan, Advocate counsel for respondent No,1, recorded today in Court, the right of any other student would not be affected if the petitioner is allowed to continue her studies. In view of the aforesaid statement this writ petition is allowed and respondent No,1 is directed to regularise the admission of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to cost. C.M. Nos.46/92 & C.Ms. Nos.85/94 and 94/94 also stand disposed of."
16. It would appear that the College Authorities were taken aback by the above decision of the learned Division Bench delivered on the basis of the statement of the learned counsel. Obviously they were not reconciled with this decision of the learned Division Bench recorded on the so-called concession, therefore, they filed petitions for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court while granting leave to appeal passed the following order on 6-7-1994:- - "Leave to appeal is granted in the above case, inter alia, to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no writ could be issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the sole consideration that by granting the writ prayed for, no other person is likely to be affected adversely. The first respondent may continue her studies in the college, at her own risk."
17. This order of the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court will show that the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the College Authorities was that it was misrepresented before the Division Bench of this Court at Abbottabad Circuit Bench that the admission of Miss Aniqa Jalal in that case has not affected any other person adversely. However, the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court had no occasion to examine this question, as during the pendency of the appeal representations were made to the Governor, N-.W.F.P. For the consideration of the case of Miss Aniqa Jalal.
18. The record shows that the authorities in the Government granted concession to Miss Aniqa Jalal and addressed the following letter bearing No,PS/SECY/H/NWFP/94 dated 31-10-1994 to the Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad:-- "To The Prof. Dr. MA. Khaliq, Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad.
' SUBJECT: CASE OF MISS ANIOA JALAL STUDENT OF AMC, Memo.
The case of Miss Aniqa Jalal was discussed with the Governor, N.-W.F.P./Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Ayub Medical College in a meeting. In view of the circumstances of the case including, inter alia, the High Court determination in her favour and her successfully having completed 3 years of her medical studies, it was decided that the student may be enabled to complete her course.
2.The counsel representing the Ayub Medical College in the Supreme Court should be advised accordingly.
(Sd.)
Dr. Nader Khan, Secretary Health, N.-W.F.P.
Copy to: ' The P.S. To. Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar for information.
(Sd.)
Secretary Health, N.-W.F.P."
19. From the above, it is clear that Miss Aniqa Jalal was adamant and bent upon avoiding legal decision from the Court fearing that she has allegedly got admission as First year M.B.,B.S. Student in the college on the basis of bogus and forged Detailed Marks Certificate and there would be no chance of her success in the Court proceedings.
20. It was in view of the above background that at the time of hearing the appeal in the case of Miss Aniqa Jalal, the above letter was produced before the august Supreme Court and as the learned counsel did not press the appeal, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. As the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court has not decided this case on merit their decision will be of no advantage to the petitioners.
21. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advance before me any satisfactory arguments. The petitioners were allegedly found to have secured admissions as First Year M.B.,B.S. Students in the college through fraud and deception by producing bogus and forged Detailed Marks Certificates to the College Authorities. Fraud and deception cannot be tolerated and countenanced by any norms of law. The Court in such case at no stage ought not to exercise its discretion on the side of concession or leniency in favour of a person charged with fraud and deception, if cogent material exists on the record against him. The case of the petitioners in the present case is a glaring instance of fraud and deception, namely, they were able to secure admissions as First Year M.B.,B.S. Students in the college by producing to the authorities forged and fake Detailed Marks Certificates.
22. It may be observed that it is commonly known that the students manipulate forged and fake Detailed Marks Certificates/Degrees to be able to continue their higher studies and also to get good service in the Government Departments. There is also a general complaint that our educational institutions are obsessed with the vices of malpractices by the students to get enviable position by securing higher bogus marks in the examinations. This makes students of intellect disappointed whose intellectual labour goes in vain. In order to save the fabrics of educational institutions from ruination the tendency of securing higher position by the students through fraud and deception must be curbed with strong hand. Some strict measures need be introduced as to ensure that every student gets position of success purely on merit. This will indeed go a long way in ensuring efficient handling of the affairs in our public institutions as well as in every sphere of life.
23. The impugned order under review suffers from no error of law apparent on record.
Consequently, these review petitions are dismissed.