KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.-- This order will dispose of Writ Petition No. 6666/98 and Writ Petition No, 7073/98, as common questions are involved.
2. Both the petitioners were studying in University of Engineering and Technology when on 04.04.1998 vide impugned notification, they have been expelled from the University on the ground that they obtained provisional admission on the basis of bogus result cards and it has been further ordered that all the dues paid by the petitioners stand forfeited in favour of the University and also the result of the examination so far passed by them and the certificates issued to them if any, have also been cancelled. The respondent No. 1 appeared and placed on record memo, dated 09.03.1998 issued by respondent No. 2 informing respondent No. 1, that the B.Sc result of the petitioners, on verification was found fake and bogus. Its representatives claim that the impugned order of expulsion etc. Has been passed on the strength of this communication.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners asserted that the allegations of respondent No. 2 are not correct and for this purpose they relied on the result cards and B.Sc. Degrees issued by the Punjab University. In order, therefore, to verify the basis of the communication of respondent No. 2 it was directed that the original record of the results of two petitioners shall be produced through Controller of Examination. Although the Controller could not appear but the record has been made available through representatives.
16. The examination of the original record reveals that Irfan Jamil Khan, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6666 of 1998 initially appeared in the B.Sc. First Annual Examination, 1991. He failed in English by obtaining 8/100 marks and consequently was directed to. Reappear in this paper. He did appear in Second Annual Examination, 1991 and this time secured 58/100 marks in the subject of English, However, the marks obtain in other subjects in the First Annual Examination 1991 were changed and shown to have been increased in the Second Annual Examination, 1991, although they had to remain the same because the petitioner never appeared in the other subjects. The following comparative table is isttructive.
SuBJECTS Ist Annual,1991 Second Annual.
Islamiyat/Pakistan Strudies 44/100 50/100 Mathematics (A) 85/200 175/200 Mathematic (B) 162/200 185/200 Physic 126/200 170/200 English 8/100 58-100 ---------- ----------- Total 425/800 638/800
4. It will be seen that in other subjects i.e. Islamiyat and Pakistan Studies, Mathematics (A), Mathematics (B) and Physics the marks obtained have been shown in the result of Second Annual Examination, 1991, much more than the actual marks secured by the petitioner.
5. In Writ Petition No. 7073/98; Amjad Yasin, petitioner appeared in B.Sc. First Annual Examination, 1992 and in paper Physics-C, actually secured 17/50 but the marks were forged and shown as 35/50 while in Physics practical as against 36/50, actually secured, 41/50 were shown to have been secured. The overall change brought was that in the paper of Physics instead of 129/200 marks, actually secured, 152/200 were shown to have been secured. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 that in these circumstances the results of these two petitioners have been declared bogus and false. The entries in the original register and the award lists and the other relevant record were shown to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners were delivered and are in possession of valid result cards and degrees, duly signed by the competent authorities and the respondent-University has no power to undo the results after number of years and that also without prior hearing. On the other hand, it has been contended that the very foundation being false and fraudulent, the issue of result cards and degrees does not debar the respondent- University from declaring the results as bogus.
7. In the face of the original record like registers and award list etc., the factual aspect of the case has to be held as established, Irfan Jamil Khan, petitioner, managed to change the marks from 425/800 to 638/800 by adding to the same in the subjects of Islamiyat/Pakistan Studies, Mathematics (A), Mathematics (B) and Physics, while appearing in the failed subject of English only in Second Annual Examination, 1991. Similarly, petitioner, Amjad Hussain, got changed the marks in Physics subject from 129/200 to 152/200 and thus managed to improved his marks and merit for admission in the University of Engineering and Technology, There is no weight in the arguments of the two learned counsel that the petitioners cannot be said to be involved in this fraud and forgery.
Since the two petitioners are the beneficiaries of the changed brought about by fraud/forgery, they cannot be heard to say that this was done without their knowledge, connivance and involvement, Perhaps this aspect may be relevant for the purposes of determining criminal liability of the petitioner but, insofar as these proceedings are concerned, the inference is unavoidable that the petitioners being beneficiaries of the fraud and forgery, are involved in the same.
8. The argument 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 tempered 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 tempered 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 of 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 fall. Reference may profitably be made to P.L.D. 1958 S.C. 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 exercise 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 P.L.D. 1973 S.C. 236. The effect of issuing writs in these two cases will be to permit the petitioners to reap the benefits of their on 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 benefits. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have seen the original record and the learned counsel were also permitted to deeply examine the original registers etc. The examination establishes the assertion of respondent No. 2. Nothing has been said to the contrary. No ill will 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 on cannot temper with the results and perfect the forgeries. Persons from within the University seem to be clearly involved. The respondent No.2 against the concerned persons. This will operate as a deterrent in future.
12. Copy of this order be sent to Vide Chancellor, University of Punjab, respondent No.2.
For the reasons recorded in my order of even date passed in Writ Petition No. 6666 of 1998, this petition also fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.