' This revision petition by one of the defendants namely Principal/Dean, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar calls in question the judgment and decree dated 8-7-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Peshawar, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11-12-1996' of the learned Civil Judge, Pehsawar whereby the suit of the plaintiff Miss Sajida Parveen directed against the cancellation of her admission in the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs,1,00,000 as liquidated damages was dismissed with costs.
2. The facts are rather variegated. During the Session 1991-92 Miss Sajida Parveen, respondent No,1 herein, was granted admission in First Year M.B.,B.S. In the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar on the strength of a Detailed Marks Certificate showing the marks obtained by her in F.Sc. Pre-Medical as
791. Sometime in the year 1993 it transpired on verification from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar that she had in fact obtained 691 marks. She was accordingly served with a show-cause notice and eventually her admission was cancelled and she was also directed to pay a sum of Rs, one lac as liquidated damages by the Principal, Khyber Medical College vide his Order, dated July 4, 1993 which is worded thus:-- "Subject: Cancellation of Admission. Memorandum; ' Reference show-cause notice served upon your vide this Office No,1019 dated 19-6-1993 and your reply to the show-cause notice, the undersigned it convinced of the charges against you of submitting a false D.M.C. Which has been confirmed by the Controller of Examination of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar vide his Letter No, 873/Inter/Secrecy/BISE, dated 16-6-1993, and subsequent arrival of real D.M.C. Pertaining to your Roll No,30162 obtained by this office from the Board Office showing your marks as 691/1100, and in pursuance of clauses (i), (ii) &
(iii) of your undertaking and in accordance with the clause 13 page 35 of our College Prospectus, your admission in this institution is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.
' You are further directed to pay a sum of Rupees one lac as liquidated damages to Khyber Medical College, Peshawar in accordance with clause (iii) of your undertaking within a period of one month from the date of issue of this letter. In case of your failure to pay the said amount to the college authorities within the prescribed period, the same will be recovered from you through the Court."
' Feeling aggrieved she challenged the validity of the above order through a declaratory suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Peshawar on 10-7-1993 wherein she alleged that the impugned order was illegal, improper, arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide because she had not personally obtained the Detailed Marks Certificate in question, which was issued after rechecking of the marks, from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar but had received it through a male member of her family and had she any reasons to believe that it was either forged or false she would have never annexed it with her admission form. That at the time of her admission the Detailed- Marks Certificate was duly scrutinized and checked by the Admission Committee in the light of the available material including the information furnished by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar. That she was not associated with the verification proceedings or confronted with the so-called bogus Detailed Marks Certificate or other material and was condemned without any enquiry.
3. The allegations made in the plaint were vehemently controverted by the Principal, Khyber Medical College in his written statement. He defendant and justified the action taken against the plaintiff on the grounds that the Detailed Marks Certificate on the basis whereof she had got admission having not been verified to be genuine by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar was forged and fake and that an enquiry was not necessary in view of the rule on the subject contained in the Prospectus under which she had secured admission in the College.
4. Alongwith the suit the plaintiff had filed an application for grant of interim relief which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 27-7-1993. She filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Pehsawar but as the Court was closed on account of Summer Vacations an application for interim relief was filed in this Court which was dismissed on 8-8-1993. Thereafter, she filed a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,211-P of 1993 in the Supreme Court and also moved a Civil Miscellaneous Petition No,95-P of 1993 as a result of which interim relief was granted on 5-9-1993 but was recalled on 20-10-1993 in the light of the statement of Mr. Ijaz Muhammad Siddiqui, Administrative Officer Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar, recorded on solemn affirmation, that Miss. Sajida Parveen appeared with Roll No,30162 in the Examination of Pre-Medical Group of 1991 and according to the Register and the record she obtained 691 marks in all. The Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 29-11-1993. The appeal filed by her against the order dated 27-7-1993 was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Peshawar on 28-6-1994 and so was her revision petition by this Court on 2-10- 1994. Review petition was also filed by her in this Court against the order dated 2-10-1994 but it was dismissed on 7-6-1995 with the observations that her case was a glaring instance of fraud and deception as she had secured admission in First Year M.B.,B.S. By producing bogus and forged Detailed Marks Certificate to the College Authorities. After that she turned towards the trial Court and moved an application for grant of interim relief in the form of a direction to the Principal, Khyber Medical College to allow her to take her 3rd Professional (4th Year Supplementary Examination). In the meantime the defendants were placed ex parte as the learned Special Government Pleader representing them did not care to appear in the Court. However, in spite of ex parte proceedings the learned trial Court dismissed the application for interim relief on 26-5-1996 and the appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 11-6- 1996.
5. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Peshawar on 11-12-1996. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Peshawar on 8-7-1997 and the suit was decreed with no order as to costs. Feeling aggrieved the Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar has come up in revision.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and scrutinizing the record carefully I feel no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable.
7. Quite obviously, the first point that arises for determination is whether the Detailed Marks Certificate on the basis of which the respondent Miss Sajida Parveen had secured admission in First Year M.B.,B.S. In the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar is genuine or fake. The respondent had passed the F.Sc. Pre-Medical Annual Examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Peshawar in the year 1991 under Roll No,30162. Admittedly, in the Detailed Marks Certificate issued at the outset, an attested copy whereof dated 22-6-1993 bearing Serial No,50370 is available on record, the marks obtained by her were shown as 691. However, her contention is that she had applied for re-checking as a result of which a fresh Detailed Marks Certificate No,105162 was issued wherein the total marks obtained by her were shown as 791. The contention is more imaginary than real because it is not augmented by the evidence or any other authentic material on record. A copy of the application for rechecking was not placed on record and the concerned official was also not examined as a witness. The written statement on behalf of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar is also not available as it was not impleaded as a defendant. All this was indubitably done on purpose because had the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education been impleaded as a defendant or one of its officials examined to establish the authenticity of the Detailed Marks Certificate in question, which neither bears any date nor the signatures of the officials who had prepared or checked it, the fraud played by the respondent would have surfaced and she would have been left high and dry as had happened in the Supreme Court of Pakistan when the statement of Mr. Ijaz Muhmmad Siddiqi, Administrative Officer, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar had recorded in respect of the Detailed Marks Certificate in question. As mentioned earlier during the pendency of the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,211-P/1993 filed by the respondent in the Supreme Court the statement of Mr. Ijaz Muhammad Siddiqi, Administrative Officer, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar was recorded as a result of which the interim relief granted to the respondent was recalled. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported as Miss Sajida Parveen and 2 others v. Principal/Dean, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 3 others (1994 SCM R 342).
The statement of the said witness is contained therein. It reads as under:-- "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 Certifcates Nos.50349, dated 22-6-1993 and No,50369, dated 26-7-1993. xxxxbyCourtxxxx ' If there is an application for recounting or rechecking of the marks 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. x x x x x (By Mr. Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Compel 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 refortified and the revised certificates issued to the candidates.
8. The judgment of this Court rejecting the Review Petition of the respondent is also reported as Miss Sajida Parveen v. Principal/Dean, Khyber Medical College and others (1995 CLC 1867). It was explicitly held therein that the Detailed Marks Certificate on the basis of which the respondent had secured admission in the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar was bogus and forged.
9. The well-reasoned ex parte judgment of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the respondent was reversed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Peshawar for the reasons; firstly, that the defendants had not adduced any evidence to rebut the statement of the plaintiff recorded on oath, secondly, the documents referred to in the judgment of the High Court were not proved in accordance with law at the trial and, thirdly, the suit was liable to be decreed on the ground of discrimination because another student of the same college namely Miss Aniqa Jalal whose admission was also cancelled on the ground of having been secured on the strength of a fake Detailed Marks Certificate had filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed on the basis of the statement of the representative of the Khyber Medical College and her admission was regularised.
10. The reasons advanced by the learned appellate Court are flimsy if not perverse and the mode of reasoning leaves much to be desired. There was no need to look for evidence in rebuttal in the face of the aforementioned reported judgment of the Supreme Court in which the controversy stood resolved in favour of the defendants. The ipse dixit of the respondent, which is not supported by any authentic document on record, can neither efface that judgment or the aforementioned reported judgment of this Court nor offset their binding effect. Same is the case with non- production of documents mentioned in the judgment of this Court which is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court. The documents have not been specified and the only noteworthy document is the Detailed Marks Certificate which had already failed to stand the test of judicial scrutiny or the report of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar in respect thereof which has been rendered superfluous by the statement of Mr. Ijaz Muhammad Siddiqui, Administrative Officer, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar recorded in the Supreme Court.
The overemphasized discrimination was neither alleged in the plaint nor is borne out by evidence on record and while making it a ground for reversing the judgment of the learned trial Judge the learned appellate Judge overlooked this technicality that he was hearing an appeal arising from a suit and not a constitutional petition. The case of Miss Aniqa Jalal was decided sometime in the year, 1994 and if the respondent was keen to make mileage from it she should have made it a part of her plaint through an amendment and sought relief on the ground of discrimination but she did not care to do so. It is scarcely necessary to mention that it is settled law that plaintiff cannot go beyond the plaint. Even otherwise the prop of discrimination is not available to the respondent because Miss Aniqa Jalal is a student of Ayub Medical College and there was no discrimination in regard to the similarly circumstance students, of the Khyber Medical College namely Irfanullah Khan and Fariha Gillani whose admission was cancelled alongwith the admission of the respondent. The case of Miss Aniqa Jalal was not decided on merits and the appeal filed by the College Authorities in the Supreme Court was not pressed in view of the decision of the Governor N.-W.F.P. Taken as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad. It will be pertinent to point out that Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an autonomous body administered by a Board of Governors while the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar is being maintained by the Government of N.-W.F.P. And is under the administrative control of the Health Department. , Besides, it is evident from the aforementioned reported judgment of this Court that the question of discrimination was urged by the respondent in her review petition but it was resolved against her. It is indeed shocking that the said reported judgment of this Court was circumvented by the learned Additional District Judge with utmost facility.
11. As regards the enquiry-related contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent it will be enough to say that the College Authorities were not obliged to hold a formal enquiry in view of the following rule which forms an integral part of the prospectus:-- "Admission will be provisional. Any candidate, whose particulars, certificates or any other document submitted with admission form are found to be incorrect or wrong in any way or whose authentication is doubtful, will be struck off from the college roll even if the candidate has been admitted. A student can be removed from the college by the Principal, at any time during the course of his/her study if incorrect or wrong data has been submitted by such a candidate/parent/guardian at the time of admission. No show-cause notice will be necessary for any action under this rule , nor would the Government, the Principal or any other authority be liable for damages for any action taken under this rule."
' The respondent had got admission under the Propsectus for the Year 1990-91, therefore, she is bound by its provisions.
12. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was not responsible for the imbroglio because she had neither forged the Detailed Marks Certificate nor collected it personally from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar. The contention cannot prevail in view of the observations made in Khair Muhammad v. University of Peshawar (1989 SCM R 854) that the fact that the certificate in question was not forged by the petitioner himself directly would not make any difference because even up to the High Court stage he tried to make use of it. In that case also the admission of the petitioner was cancelled due to his having submitted a forged certificate.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the learned Civil Judge, Peshawar dismissing the suit of the respondent is restored with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.