NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---Petitioner lrfan Jamil Khan son of Muhammad Jamil has filed this petition seeking leave against the impugned order dated 18-4-1998 passed by the Lahore High Court dismissing his Writ Petition No,6666 of 1998. By the said order, two Writ Petitions filed by separate petitioners were dismissed by the High Court. As observed, Writ Petition No,6666 of 1998 was filed by present petitioner lrfan Jamil Khan whereas Writ Petition No,7073 of 1998 was filed by one Amjad Yasin. However, this petition for leave is filed by both lrfan Jamil Khan. We have heard at length the arguments of Mr. Gul Zarin Kiani, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner; Syed Sajjad Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore; Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,2, University of Punjab, Lahore, and Ch. M. Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,3, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the record.
2. Petitioner was a student of the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, having been granted admission in December, 1992 for session 1992-1993. According to the petitioner, he was transferred from Civil Engineering to Electrical Engineering course on the basis of merit by letter dated 4-2-1993 of the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was seriously ill during the year 1993 and, therefore, could not continue his studies but, later on, he was granted readmission by letter dated 11-4-1994, he passed his 1st Year Annual Examination in 1995, his 2nd year Annual Examination of B.Sc (Electrical Engineering) held during December, 1996-March, 1997 and completed his 3rd Year classes/course by fulfilling the necessary requirement of lectures and was scheduled to appear in the Annual Examination of B.Sc. 3rd year which was to commence from 20-4-1998. According to the petitioner, a news item appeared in daily Jang, Lahore, showing expulsion of about 67 students of the University of Engineering including the petitioner on the ground of seeking admission to the University in an illegal manner and the news item was based on a Notification dated 4-4-1998 of the University of Engineering.
3. Petitioner challenged the Notification dated 4-4-1998 by filing Writ Petition No,6666 of 1998 in the Lahore High Court on 13-4-1998. However, as Observed, the said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18-4-1998 of the High Court.
The impugned Notification dated 4-4-1998 is reproduced here:-- "UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE (STUDENTS SECTION)
NOTIFICATION No, Univ/SS/LHR/860 Dated: April 4.1998 Subject: EXPULSION FROM THE UNIVERSITY ON ACCOUNT OF ADMISSION ON BOGUS DOCUMENTS:
1. The students listed below were admitted provisionally in this University on the basis of the marks claimed to have been obtained by them in B.Sc. Examination from the University of the Punjab, Lahore at the time of admission in the University.
2. On verification from the University of Punjab it has been found that their result cards are Bogus.
3. Since they managed to secure admission on the basis of a bogus result card, they are hereby expelled from the University and their names are struck off from the University rolls with, immediate effect. All the dues paid by them are also forfeited in favour of the University. The results of all the examinations so far passed by them and the certificates.
S. No,Name of StudentFather's Name Marks Roll No, ExaminationRegd.
No, 1 Irfan Jamil KhanMuhammad Jamil Khan638 6233 S.A.91 93-E- 138 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
(Sd.)
(Ghul am Mohy-ud-D in)
Deputy Registrar (SS)"
4. On behalf of University of Engineering and Technology, memo. Dated 9-3-1998 issued by the University of Punjab (respondent No,2) informing the University of Engineering and Technology that the B.Sc. Result of the petitioner on, verification, was found fake and bogus, was filed before the High Court. According to the University of Engineering and Technology, the impugned order of expulsion of the petitioner was passed on the basis of this communication from the University of Punjab. However, the allegations were denied and, in support, the petitioner relied upon his result card and B.Sc. Degree issued by the University of Punjab to him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court directed that the original record of the results of the petitioner be produced through Controller of Examination to verify the basis of the communication of the University of Punjab. The original record was produced by the representative of the University of Punjab. According to the impugned order of the High Court, on examination of the original record of the University of Punjab produced before the High Court, it was revealed that petitioner Kan Jmail Khan initially appeared in the B.Sc. First Annual Examination 1991, in which he failed only in English by obtaining 8 out of 100 marks. He passed in other papers and consequently he was directed to reappear in English, which he did in the Second Annual Examination 1991 securing 58 out of 100 marks. It is the case of the University of Punjab as well as the petitioner that in the earlier examination he had only failed in one subject of English and that he had passed the other subjects in the First Annual Examination 1991. He only appeared in that paper again in the Second Annual Examination 1991 and passed the same by securing 58/100 marks. However, the original record produced before. The High Court revealed that the marks obtained by the petitioner in other subjects in the First Annual Examination 1991 were changed and shown to have increased considerably which could not have been done except through illegal means as the petitioner had never appeared in other subjects. On the basis of the original record of the University of Punjab, a comparative table of the marks of the petitioner was prepared (as it appears in the impugned order of the High Court) and the same is reproduced here:- "Subjects 1991 Islamiyat/1st Annual Second annual Pakistan 44/100 50/100 Studies Mathematics
(A) 85/200 175/200 Mathematics
(B) 162/200 185/200 Physics 126/200 170/200 English 8/100 58/100 Total: 425/800 638/800"
The High Court then noted that, from the comparative table prepared on the basis of the original record produced before the High Court, it would appear that in other subjects i.e,, Islamiyat and Pakistan Studies, Mathematics (A), Mathematics (B) and Physics, the marks obtained in the result of 1st Annual Examination, 1991, when petitioner had appeared in the said papers, were much less than the marks shown in the result card of the Second Annual Examination 1991, in which he had only appeared in the English paper.
5. Before the High Court it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had been delivered a valid result card (with higher marks) and degree duly signed by the Competent Authority; and the University of Engineering and Technology had no power to undo the result after a number of years and that also without prior hearing. On behalf of the respondents it was contended before the High Court that the very foundation being false and fraudulent, the issue of result card and degree by the Punjab University did not debar the University of Engineering and Technology from declaring petitioner's results as bogus. The High Court was of the view that in the face of the original record like registers and award lists etc. And the factual aspect of the case had to be held as established.
It was then found that the petitioner had managed to get the marks increased from 425/800 to 638/800 by managing increase in marks in other 4 subjects (apart from English) without appearing in such papers in the Second Annual Examination 1991 when he had admittedly appeared only in English. The High Court was of the view that there was no weight in the argument that the petitioner could not be said to be involved in this fraud and forgery and that, since the petitioner was the beneficiary, he could not be heard to say that this was done without his knowledge, connivance or involvement. According to the High Court, the inference was unavoidable that the petitioner being beneficiaries of the fraud and forgery, was involved in the same. The other aspects of the case were dealt with as follows by the High Court:-- "(8) The arguments that the two petitioners are in possession of valid result cards and degrees duly issued by respondent University does not need serious consideration, once from the preliminary sources/record it is established that the result has been tampered with. The result cards and the degrees are based on and reflect the result contained in the primary record and if the original and primary record is found forged and tampered with, the result cards and degrees automatically fall through. Similarly there is no force in the argument based on the principle of estoppel. Firstly there cannot be estoppel against the Statute and secondly fraud is vitiative to all proceedings in law. If the result is fraudulent and forged, the same does not create any right in favour of the petitioners and can always be cancelled and recalled (Ref. PLD 1975 SC 331) and once the result is cancelled and recalled, the whole super-structure of admission in respondent No,1 and passing of its examination also falls. Reference may profitably be made to PLD 1958 SC 104).
(9) It is correct that before taking the impugned action no notice was issued to the petitioners.
However, in the circumstances of the case, this failure does not improve the lot of the petitioners, as it has been found from the original source that the results of the two petitioners have been improved through forgeries. The petitioners are beneficiaries of the forged improvements. Should such petitioners be allowed any relief in exercises of the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution? The answer is clearly no. The issue of writ can be withheld even against a void order as laid down in Ronaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236. The effect of issuing writs in these two cases will be to permit the petitioners to reap the benefit of their own fraud and forgeries. This cannot be the purpose of the writ jurisdiction which certainly will not be exercised to permit a litigant to enjoy the ill-gotten benefit. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have seen the original record and the learned counsel were also permitted to deeply examine the assertion of respondent No,2 Nothing has been said to the contrary. No or mala fide has been pleaded. Even if on this technicality the impugned action is set aside the result after notice and hearing will be the same.
(10) For the above reasons, there is no merit in these two petitions which are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(11) Clearly the students on their own cannot tamper with the result and perfect the forgeries.
Persons from within the University seem to be clearly involved. The respondent No,2 is advised to examine this aspect and to lodge criminal cases against the concerned persons. This will operate as a deterrent in future.
(12) Copy of this order be sent to Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab, respondent No,2."
6. In support of the present petition for leave against the impugned order of the High Court, Mr. GulZarin Kiani, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, has advanced the following contentions:-- "(a) The impugned action of expulsion from the University of Engineering and Technology on the ground of securing admission to the University on the basis of forged result card showing inflated marks violates the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no prior show-cause notice was given to the petitioner and impugned action was not preceded an inquiry in which the petitioner was associated and given a chance for explanation.
(b) Result card issued by the University of Punjab allegedly showing the inflated marks had not yet been cancelled by the University of Punjab. In the circumstances, the University of Engineering and Technology could not challenge the validity and genuineness of the result card and expel the petitioner from the University.
(c) The University of Engineering and Technology had passed the impugned notification of petitioner's expulsion without lawful authority.
(d) Correctness of the result of B.Sc. Examination held by the University of Punjab after expiry of 3 years from its declaration could not be questioned and, in any case, the same could not be annulled under the relevant rules and regulations.
(e) If at all it was a case of fraud and forgery, the High Court should not have conducted an inquiry into such a disputed question.
(f) If at all there was any doubt as to the validity of the result card, the High Court should have remanded the case for inquiry to the University Authorities with the direction to associate the petitioner in such inquiry for fulfilling the dictates of justice.
(g) The High Court has closed all avenues of relief for the petitioner by giving a final verdict. The final authority in such matter is the Syndicate and if any inquiry had been held with which the petitioner was associated and in the inquiry a finding was given against the petitioner and some adverse action against him taken, he could have then had recourse to the Syndicate, but this avenue of approaching the Syndicate has been closed by the High Court by giving a final verdict itself."
7. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for University of Punjab confirmed the contents of memo. Dated 9-3-1998 issued by the University of Punjab informing the University of Engineering and Technology that the B.Sc. Result of the petitioner on verification was found bogus. On being asked, learned Sr.ASC for the University of Punjab informed that so far the result of B.Sc. Of petitioner had not been cancelled but requisite action in that regard will be taken.
Syed Sajjad Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the University of Engineering and Technology submitted that action had been taken by his clients for expulsion of the petitioner on the basis of the written information received from the University of Punjab about the false and bogus result of B.Sc. Of the petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court, adopted the arguments of Ch. Muhammad Farooq and Syed Sajjad Hussain.
8. Reliance in support of the proposition that the petitioner had been condemned unheard and he was not associated with any inquiry, if any, held by the University of Engineering and Technology in connection with the result of B.Sc. Of the petitioner, and the impugned action of the University of Engineering and Technology against the petitioner, therefore, violates the principle of natural justice was placed by Mr. Gul Zarin Kiani, learned Advocate Supreme Court, upon the following reported judgments:--
(i) Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore. (PLD 1971 SC 838)
(ii) Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha v. Shahid Latif (1990 SCM R 771)
(iii) Azad Jammu and Kashmir University v. Muhammad Malik (1998 CLC 783).
In the case of Samar Pervaiz (supra), on which main reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts were that the appellant there had in fact obtained 533 marks in the Intermediate Examination held by the Board of Secondary Education and was placed in the Second Division but the result which was announced showed him to have secured 633 marks and placed in the First Division. He secured admission to a Medical College on that basis. The College Authorities got the detailed marks certificate submitted by the petitioner confidentially verified by the Board's Controller of Examinations and, after about one year, issued notice to the appellant to show cause why action should not be taken against him for fact that he had, by approaching and influencing the employees of the Board, managed to get his marks illegally and fraudulently increased. The allegations were denied by the appellant. But ultimately he was disqualified by the Board from appearing at 7 examinations of the Board from September 1966 to September 1969 and this meant that his result in the Intermediate Examination 1967 of with 533 marks was also cancelled. Mr. Gul Zarin Kiani, placed reliance on the following observations made in the said case:- - "It is true that domestic Tribunals like a University or a Secondary Board of Education are free from the fetter and the formalities of a judicial trial and .While these can, consistently with the demands of justice, be ignored, it does not, by any means, follow that such domestic forums, while dealing with valuable rights and privileges of an individual, can snatch them away on conjectural grounds, even though such grounds may ostensibly appear to be very plausible but without any valid proof of their tangibility. However, morally convinced a Judge may feel as to the truth of a particular fact, unless there is legal proof of its existence he cannot take it as proved. Conjectures and suspicion cannot take the place of proof. A Tribunal's decision must rest not on suspicion but upon legal grounds established by legal evidence. In the present case, apart from the fact that the appellant's marks were increased by tampering with the records, and he is the beneficiary thereof, there is no evidence at all to connect him with bringing about that result. The mere fact that the marks had been inflated and the appellant stands to benefit from that circumstance may convincingly lead one to a conjectural hypothesis that this was done at his instance or with his connivance, but it is no more than a mere conjecture. An equally convincing hypothesis can be that his father or some other relation may, in league with the concerned officials of the Board, have arranged to tamper with the appellant's result sheet without the latter's knowledge or connivance. His parents or his relations were as much beneficiaries of the result achieved as the appellant himself. The former would be more particularly worried and concerned about the future of the appellant at this stage of his life, his future welfare being an inseparable part of their own well-being. But, as already remarked above, it is, at best, a matter of mere conjecture as to how much the appellant was directly or indirectly involved in inflating his marks. The Board's officials, who were in charge of the records, and who had access to them, should have been probed to find out the truth. On the plane of mere conjectures, one is left with the feeling that the appellant may be guilty or he may be innocent, and it is dangerous to convict a man and rob him of his rights when the probabilities are equally balanced either way. It is also possibly true that no positive evidence could have been adduced to prove the appellant's guilt in manipulating his result by forging the records, and the matter remains in the realm of inferences. If the facts were to yield the only irresistible inference that the appellant alone and none else on his side was responsible for this tampering, and that it was done with his knowledge and connivance, it would not have been difficult to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court, but here, as already pointed out above, other inferences are legitimately deducible, which leave the appellant's guilt in the matter clouded in doubt."
This Court further observed in the judgment in the case of Samar Pervaiz that mistake had obviously been found in the result of the appellant but must his result be quashed on that basis without any proof that this mistake was due to some culpable act on his part and his result could not be quashed by the Board. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, firstly no show- cause notice was given or inquiry held in which the petitioner was associated before the impugned action was taken and even if the facts as alleged by the Universities are correct, on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of Samar Pervaiz it would be a case of mere suspicion against the petitioner in having his marks increased and on mere suspicion alone the action of the University of Engineering and Technology was not sustainable.
9. Dealing first with the question of violation of principle of natural justice, it may be observed that this was a case where, by notification dated 4-4-1998, action was taken against 60 students including the petitioner for their expulsion from the University of Engineering and Technology on account of admission on bogus documents. Notification dated 4-4-1998 has been reproduced in the earlier part of this order and it shows that all the said students including the petitioner were admitted provisionally in the University on the basis of the marks claimed to have been obtained by them in B.Sc. Examination of the University of Punjab at the time of admission in the University of Engineering and Technology and on verification from the University of Punjab it had been found that their result cards were bogus and as they had managed to secure admission they were being expelled from the University and their names were struck off from the Rolls of the University with immediate effect. In the present case, after the said Notification dated 4-4-1998 had been issued, petitioner filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court and the High Court called for the record and on the basis of the record it was found that the result of the petitioner of B.Sc. Of the Punjab University had been changed, illegally and the marks had been inflated from 425 to 638.
On 22-64998 when this petition was fixed before this Court for hearing, the representative of the University of Punjab had brought the record pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and facility was extended to the petitioner's counsel and father of the petitioner, who has been present throughout, to examine the record and to see whether any incorrect statement had been made on behalf of the University of Punjab as regards the inflation of the marks. The case was then adjourned for 23-6-1998 and Mr. Gul Zarin Kiani, learned counsel for the petitioner was then asked whether he wanted to make any comments on of the record that had been brought by the University but the learned counsel stated that he had no comments to make. In fact the learned counsel relied upon the contention that the petitioner was condemned unheard and principles of natural justice had been violated and that the result card (showing inflated marks) of the Punjab University on the basis of which petitioner got admission in the University of Engineering and Technology had still not been cancelled by the University of Punjab and, therefore, the action of expulsion by the Engineering University was even otherwise illegal and not sustainable in law.
(10) In our view, in the present case, where on verification from the record of the University of Punjab it had been found that the result card of the petitioner in respect of the B. Sc. Examination contained infalted marks whereas petitioner had obtained muchless marks and petitioners had not denied that according to the records of the University of Punjab the marks had been inflated either before the High Court or before this Court, the action of the University of Engineering and Technology could not be held to be illegal on the ground that no earlier show-cause notice had been given to the petitioner or he had not been associated in the inquiry in this case of large scale mischief.
Reference may again be made to the judgment in the case of Samar Pervaiz (supra) where it was held by this Court that action of the Board cancelling appellantsintermediate result was illegal, yet this Court came to the conclusion that striking of the name of the appellant in that case from the rolls of the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, was maintainable. In that case also the High Court had examined also the original record and had come to the conclusion that correct marks obtained by the appellant were 533 which were inflated to 633 by tampering with the entries and on this basis the Court observed that it was obvious that the appellant in that case secured admission to the college on a representation with regard to the marks obtained by him which had been proved to be incorrect. It was further observed that the appellant would not have been able to secure admission to the Medical College if the correct state of affairs was known to the authorities and, therefore, this factor vitiated the admission. It had also been argued in that case that the appellant's name could have been struck of during the first year in the Medical College and not afterward even if he was found guilty of securing admission through illegal means. This Court rejected the argument by observing that lapse of time does not sanctify an action based on fraud and misrepresentation. It had been further submitted in that case that the position in which appellant was then placed demanded a commiserable and merciful consideration. It was informed that the appellant had already taken his second year examination and had been provisionally promoted to the third year M.B.B.S. Class and his expulsion from the college would be wastage of two precious years of his life. This Court did not accept this submission either by observing as follows:-- "These considerations cannot matter with us in disposing of this case on a legal plane. The appellant may, if so advised, seek indulgence from the college authorities, who would be quite competent to give him the relief, if they feel inclined to do so despite this judgment."
Appellant's appeal in the case of Samar Pervaiz was accepted to the extent that the decision of the Board in quashing his result for the Intermediate Examination 1967 was set aside but the decision of the Administrator of the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, in striking off the appellant's name from the college rolls was maintained.
11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as observed, we are of the view that the impugned action against the petitioner is not liable to be set aside on the ground that no show- cause notice had been issued to him or inquiry held before the impugned action was taken. The fact that the result card (showing inflated marks) has so far not been cancelled by the University of Punjab is also of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as University of Punjab had informed the University of Engineering and Technology that petitioner's result card shows inflated marks which had not been obtained by him and on the basis of such misleading result card, the University of Engineering and Technology was competent to expel the petitioner from the University of Engineering and Technology.
1990 SCMR 1990 and 1998 CLC 783 relied by Mr. Kiani are also of no help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case.
12. In the facts of this case, there is no merit in the argument that the University of Engineering and Technology could not expel the petitioner after 3 years of admission. If any authority is required, reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Samar Pervaiz PLD 1971 SC 838 (supra).
13. There is no merit in the other arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Suffice it is to observe that the record had been called by the High Court as well as by this Court. After going through the record with the assistance of the counsel for the parties including the petitioner, the High Court found that the marks had been inflated in regard to the B.Sc. Result of the petitioner. As far as the proceedings of this Court are concerned, the record had been called but neither petitioner's father who has been present during the hearing, nor the learned counsel for the petitioner took advantage for inspecting the record that had been brought by the representative of the University of Punjab. In the facts and circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court, in this case, rightly placed reliance on Raunaq Ali's case (PLD 1973 SC 236).
As a result, we find no merit in this petition. Civil Petition No,448 of 1998 is accordingly dismissed and leave is refused.