The petitioner filed a suit for declaration in the Court below that he had passed his Matriculation Examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan under Roll No.30902 and obtained 2nd Division. A Certificate No. SSC 094330 dated 30-I1-1974 was issued by respondent No. l to that effect. The petitioner joined service in Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and produced the aforesaid original certificate at the time of his appointment. The said certificate was sent to respondent No.1 for verification. Respondent No.1 replied to the Bank concerned that the certificate aforesaid was bogus..In view of that situation the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. The petitioner impleaded the Muslim Commercial Bank as a co- defendnat with respondent No. l but later on deleted him from the plaint on 23-1-1984.
2. The case was first tried by the Senior Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan and it was decreed on 3-9-1984.
The respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid decree whereupon the District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, while accepting the appeal set aside the decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and remanded the case by re-framing the issues. After the post remand trial the case of the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 5-7-1987 delivered by Mr. Atta Muhammad Naz, the then learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan. The appeal against the dismissal of the suit came up for hearing before Mahar Ahmad Raza, learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. He while concurring with the learned Trial Court dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated 23-2- 1992. Hence this Revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Regulation No. 18 of the Calendar of the Board. Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan the result of the petitioner could not be quashed after expiry of four years. In this respect, it was further submitted that even if the result was proposed to be cancelled or quashed, respondent had to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner before taking penal action. Since the same was not done, therefore, the cancellation or quashment of the result was allegedly illegal in view of the principle laid down in Shahid Latif v. Principal, King Edward Medical College and two others reported as NLR 1981 UC 1.
4. It has been further submitted that onus of issues was wrongly placed on the petitioner to prove that the result was genuine. Anyhow, after production of original certificate, the onus had shifted upon the respondent to prove that the same was not genuine, but no action was taken either by producing Secretary of Examination who had signed the certificate or the official, who had prepared the same. It was, therefore, urged that the petitioner was successful to prove the genuineness of the certificate in question and that the finding given by the learned lower Courts on this point was erroneous and bad in the eye of law.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that concurrent finding of the Courts below cannot be successfully challenged in a Revision Petition particularly when the onus of the issues was never objected to at the time of their framing by the remanding Court pr at the time of trial in the Court below. It was, therefore, urged that it could not be challenged at this stage because there was sufficient evidence on record to decide the matter.
6. Secondly it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no need of issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioner because the certificate produced and found to be bogus was never cancelled nor any result was quashed because the respondent No. l had never declared the petitioner as successful in the Annual Examination of 1974. It was, therefore, forcefully submitted that the principle laid down in the authority cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. I have considered the above contentions raised at the Bar from both sides. It is now well-settled that concurrent finding of the forums below cannot be easily set aside until and unless it is proved that there has been misreading, non-reading or misinterpretation of the evidence brought on record to prove disputed facts. In the instant case I have not been shown any such flaw in the impugned judgments of the learned lower Courts. On the contrary, those are well reasoned and have adequately and fairly discussed the evidence examined at the trial from both sides. The most material evidence on the point in issue is the result statement of the Secondary School Certificate Examination Annual, 1974 which is produced as Exh.P-5. It shows the name of the petitioner against Roll No.30902 and in the column meant for Mathematic (elective) the marks obtained by the petitioner are shown as 05 out of total of 100 marks. In the column meant for pass or fail, he is shown to have failed. It is thus obvious that according to the result sheet the petitioner had secured 05 marks out of 100 marks in mathematic instead of 45 marks out of 100 marks as claimed by him.
Similarly an extract from the statement of failure Exh.D/8 the name and Roll No. Of petitioner appeared at Serial No. 68. The Result Gazette Exh.D/11 issued by the Board shows Roll No.30902 with the name of petitioner i.e. Muhammad Yasin to have failed. In the last column the letters E.M. With asterik were added with its clarification at the bottom of the page that petitioner could re-appear in the failing subject till Supplementary Examination, 1974. These two documents are authentic and conclusive proof to show that the petitioner had not been declared successful in the Matric Examination of 1974 by the Board.
8. In view of above discussion it can be safely said that the learned lower Courts had correctly arrived at a concurrent conclusion that Matric Certificate held by the petitioner was bogus and that the same was not genuinely issued by respondent No. l i.e. The Board. It is also clear that since the Board never claimed to have issued it, therefore, there is no question that they should have cancelled the same, or quashed the result after issuance of show-cause notice as claimed by the petitioner. The Revision Petition being meritless is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
9. Before I finally part with the order, it will be in the interest of justice that a copy of this judgment should be sent to the Chairman of the Board concerned to hold an inquiry as to how it happened that a bogus certificate was issued on behalf of the Board and was placed in the hands of the petitioner. This shows that there are some loopholes in the system of examinations conducted by the Board which need to be immediately plugged to attach a respectable status to the academic certificates issued by the Board. If need be, the Board can recourse to criminal or disciplinary action, if any of its employee is found to be guilty in the preparation or issuance of this bogus certificate or other certificates of its kind. The Chairman of the Board shall after holding comprehensive and detailed inquiry will send his finding to the Additional Registrar of this Court so that, if necessary, further action may be initiated to uphold the sanctity of the l Educational Institutions in the country.