' The petitioner appeared in Intermediate Annual Examination, 1992 under Roll No, 1522 but he failed in the subject of Chemistry. He reappeared in the Intermediate Second Annual (Supplementary)
Examination, 1992 in all the subjects under Roll No, 35039. On the announcement of the result he was declared successful and accordingly the Result Card, dated 6-2-1993 was sent to the petitioner by the respondent Board showing him to have obtained 781 marks out of 1100 marks and was also given A-Grade on the basis of his marks. The petitioner, thereafter, passed his B.A. In 1st Annual Examination, 1995 in 2nd Division obtaining 438 marks out of 800 marks. The petitioner also joined Basic Accountancy Course of the Institute of Chartered/Inter-Accountants in Pakistan in the Lahore College of Management Sciences.
2. It is averred in the petition that in the month of January, 1996 the petitioner contacted concerned officials in the respondent Board to obtain certificate of his Intermediate Examination but to his surprise he was informed that on account of using unfair means the Intermediate Examination in which the petitioner had appeared was cancelled and he was also disqualified for six consecutive examinations. The petitioner then filed this writ petition. On the direction of the Court the report was filed by the respondent. By my order, dated 15-9-1996 this case was treated as a notice case where after the written statement with some documents was also filed by the respondent.
3. In the report and written statement, the respondent Board stated that Professor Muhammad Ahsan of Government College for Science Education, Township, Lahore was appointed as Chief Scrutinizing Officer to check answer books of various candidates of the Intermediate Second Annual Examination, 1992 and on checking the answer books of the petitioner, the difference in handwriting was found in Papers A and B of the subject of Biology and, therefore, it was held that it was a case of impersonation in the Examination Hall. Accordingly unfair means case was registered against the petitioner and he was charge-sheeted. It is alleged that the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner through registered post but it remained unanswered. Therefore, the Discipline Committee decided ex parte and held the petitioner guilty of impersonation and disqualified him for six Examinations up to Annual Examination, 1995 under Rule 10(ii) of Chapter 6 of the Calendar of the Board.
4. The petitioner denied all these allegations and stated that he neither impersonated nor adopted any other unfair means in the examination and that he never received any show-cause notice or intimation for appearing before the Discipline Committee and also order of disqualification was not received by him and that for the first time he came to know about these allegations in the month of January, 1996 when he contacted the Board's officials to obtain the certificate of Intermediate Examination.
5. When asked to produce the record of the proceedings of the Discipline Committee, learned counsel for the respondent Board submitted that the entire record consisting the answer books and the disciplinary case of the petitioner alongwith other students was destroyed with the permission of the Chairman which was obtained in the month of December, 1995. According to him the only permanent record in this respect which is maintained by the Board, is Despatch Register showing issuance of the notices and letters to the candidates against whom any action was taken by the Board and another Register which contains the brief notes with regard to the unfair means cases in a particular examination. Both these Registers have been produced before me in original and the photo-copies of the relevant entries have been placed on record by the respondent Board.
The respondent Board has also placed on record of this Court the Office Order, whereby Professor Muhammad Ahsan of Government College for Science Education, Township, Lahore was appointed as Chief Scrutinising Officer. This Office Order reads as follows:--- "The Chairman has been pleased to appoint Professor Muhammad Ahsan, Government College for Science Education, Township, Lahore as Chief Scrutinising Officer in the results of Secondary School/Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1993."
' This Office Order was issued by the Controller of Examinations on 17-6-1993 in pursuance of the order of the Chairman and accordingly the Chief Scrutinising Officer had to scrutinise the results of Secondary Schools and Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1993.
6. There are some inherent contradictions in the stand taken by the respondent Board. According to the written statement, "Professor Muhammad Ahsan was appointed as Chief Scrutinising Officer to check answer books of various candidates for the Intermediate Second Annual Examination, 1992. He checked answer books of the petitioner under Roll No,35039 and found difference in handwriting in Biology Paper "A" and "B". He found it as an impersonation in the Examination Hall".
7. The petitioner had admittedly appeared initially in the Intermediate Annual Examination, 1992 and subsequently, in the Intermediate Second Annual (Supplementary) Examination, 1992. The Office Order was issued on 17-6-1993 appointing Professor Muhammad Ahsan as Chief Scrutinising Officer whereas the report (photostat copy whereof is placed on record by the respondent at Annexure R-i) shows that it was signed by the Chief Scrutinising Officer on 27-1-1993 much before his appointment. Thus, the contents of the written statement to this extent and the report, dated 27-1-1993 stand contradicted by the Office Order No,2055 CE/P, dated 17-6-1993 whereby Professor Muhammad Ahsan was appointed as Chief Scrutinising Officer to scrutinize the results of the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1993, but was not appointed "to check answer books of various candidates for the Intermediate Second Annual Examination, 1992" as stated in the written statement, nor was he the Chief Scrutinising Officer in the month of January, 1993 when the report Annexure R(i) was allegedly made by him. The stance of the Board that the answer books of the petitioner, who had appeared in Intermediate (Second), Annual Examination of 1992, were checked by Professor Muhammad Ahsan stand contradicted by the Office Order No,2055 CE/P, dated 17-6- 1993. Therefore, the alleged report, dated 27-1-1993 of Professor Muhammad Ahsan appears to be fictitious, and in any case of no legal value as the same was without authorisation.
8. There is another aspect of the present case. As observed above, the petitioner had also appeared in Intermediate Annual Examination, 1992 under Roll No,1522 but failed in the subject of Chemistry and thereafter, the petitioner re-appeared in Intermediate Second Annual (Supplementary) Examination, 1992. The respondent Board has placed on record extract of the results (Annexure R(vii) giving details of the marks, the peritioner had obtained in both these examinations which are reproduced below:- ROLL NO. 35039 SUPPLEMENTARY 1992 URDUENGLUSHISLAMIC EDUCATIONPAK STUDIESPHYSICSCHEMISTRYBIO 149110 42 35 147 164 134 ROLL.NO. 1522 ANNU AL 1992 URDUENGLUSHISLAMIC EDUCATIONPAK STUDIESPHYSICSCHEMISTRYBIO 126110 35 35 13414+39+53 fail125
10. The comparison of the results of two examinations shows that except in the subject of Chemistry, there was not much difference between the marks obtained by the petitioner in both these examinations. In the First Annual Examination, 1992, the petitioner had failed in only practical of the subject of chemistry but qualified in both papers of theory.
11. The petitioner had a brilliant academic record previously. He obtained merit-scholarships in his Middle and Matriculation Examinations and had also received National Talent Award. In the First Annual Examination, 1992, the petitioner had obtained total 685 marks whereas in the Second Annual Examination, 1992, he obtained 781 marks. This little increase could be due to the fact that the petitioner got more time for preparation before re-appearing in the Second Annual Examination, 1992. It is not the case of the respondent that in the First Annual Examination, 1992, the petitioner had used unfair means wherein he had passed in the subject of Biology by obtaining 125 marks. In the Supplementary Examination he obtained 134 marks in Biology. In the presence of these facts. I am of the view that the petitioner was not likely to resort to unfair means of impersonation to pass in the subject of Biology, or for that matter in any other subject.
12. The stance of the Board that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was followed by the reminders and thereafter, the Discipline Committee took an ex parte decision which was also conveyed to the petitioner, has been denied by him. The only proof produced by the Board are the aforesaid two Registers. I have not been shown any law or departmental instructions under which these Registers are being maintained by the clerks. These Registers are also not authenticated by the Incharge of the Department/Branch or any competent officer. These Registers are being maintained by the clerks at their discretion without checks or supervision. Both the Registers contain cuttings and overwritings. The entries are very sketchy and have no reference to any decision/order. The entries in respect of the petitioner's disqualification are as follows:--- Case no.Roll No.Centre Particulars Institution/DistrictOffenceDecision 748 35039Bio,physics, Eng.Muazzam Khan s/o CH. Nazir ahmad Chanda6.10 (ii)Six months The entries under colunm 'Centre' are irrelevant and another column is left blank. The entry of Six Exams' under column, "Decision" does not explain anything. On the same page of this Register, entries under column ' Decision' relating to Case No,749 have been completely scored out and re- written. Similarly, in the Despatch Register, the entry made on 22-5-1993 in respect of the present petitioner is scored out and overwritten. Therefore, to the entries in these Registers made in such circumstances and without authentication by any Competent Authority, presumption of correctness cannot be attached. In the case, "Government of Sindh v. Saiful Haq Hashmi" (1993 SCM R 956), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, it was held that "....All. Official acts are presumed to be regular unless proved to have been done irregularly". Therefore, these entries cannot be regarded as proof of the assertions made by the respondent Board, particularly when heavy penalty is being imposed upon the affected persons. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the petition suffered from laches inasmuch as he was disqualified in 1993 whereas he filed writ petition in January, 1996. According to the petitioner, he came to know about his alleged disqualification in the month of January, 1996 whereafter he filed the present writ petition. Since I have held that it is not established thar the petitioner had received the show-cause notice or intimation of his disqualification in the year 1993, this plea has no force. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the photographs and the signatures on two admission forms relating to Intermediate First Annual Examination, 1992 and Second Annual Examination, 1992 are different which proves his impersonation. I have myself checked both the forms which have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondent. The photographs on both these forms when minutely examined are of the same person. However, the signatures on the forms in English are different but those in Urdu on both the forms are the same, therefore, this plea is of no significance.
(c) In the present case the future of the petitioner is at stake which cannot be allowed to be marred in this manner. On the basis of the result card which was issued by the respondent Board according to which the petitioner had qualified Intermediate Examination by securing 781 marks, the petitioner got admission in B.A. And passed the B.A. Examination from the University of Punjab in the year 1995. However, according to the entries made in the aforesaid Registers the petitioner stands disqualified for six consecutive examinations of Intermediate and consequently he shall have to re-appear in the Intermediate Examination and two years thereafter in the B.A.
Examination. To prove the charge of impersonation against the petitioner, with such serious consequences, heavy burden lay on the respondent not only to establish the charge but also that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner which he had received and that the petitioner deliberately disassociated from the disciplinary proceedings after having full knowledge of the same. Such a proof is lacking in the present case. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted and the respondent is directed to issue to the petitioner the requisite certificate relating to Intermediate Examination of the petitioner in accordance with the result card, dated 6-2-1993. No order as to costs.