1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This is an appeal by special leave of this Court from an order of the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court dismiss--ing the appellant's writ petition under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1972.
2. It appears that the appellant appeared at the Secondary School Certifi--cate (Annual)
3. Examination held in March/April, 1972, by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The result was published in the Gazette in July, 1972, and it showed that he had secured a total of 565 marks. On having received the detailed marks certificate the appellant was surprised to find that he had secured only 45 out of 100 marks in Social Studies and 54 out of 100 marks in Physics. These marks were below his expectation, and he applied to the Board in August, 1972, for re-checking of his answer books in respect of the aforesaid, two papers. The inquiry that followed this application revealed that the appellant's marks on answer book of Social Studies paper had been inflated from 45 to 70 and although the original award list sent on the 25th of May 1972, as well as its counterfoil men--tioning 45 marks had not been cancelled, the revisal award list sent on the 1st of June, 1972, and its counterfoil duly signed by the sub-examiner and head-examiner mentioned 70 marks in respect of Social Studies. The sub---examiner and the head-examiner were required to explain the discrepancy, and it was then disclosed that the head-examiner had sent for the sub-examiner and asked the latter to revise the answer of the appellant and to give marks on answer to question No. 9 of the said paper. It was further found that the original answer to question No. 9 contained in a continuation sheet upon which the sub-examiner had given only two marks had been removed and it was replaced by another answer to question No. 9 written in the hand of the appellant and upon which the sub-examiner gave 13 marks. All these were found to have been done in collusion with the appellant and the said two examiners. The appellant was accordingly charged on the 20th of October, 1972, in the following terms :--- "It has been alleged that you Rahat Siddiqi son of Abdul Rashid Siddiqi Roll No. 27514 while appearing in the 1972 S. S. C. Annual Exami--nation in Social Studies paper on 24-4-1972 at Lahore 65 centre induced the examiners in Social Studies paper and got your marks enhanced from 45 to 70.
4. This is an offence and falls under rule 8 (iv) printed on the following pages."
(1) Rule 8 (iv) of the Rules framed by the Board were not applicable to the appellant inasmuch as it applied only before the result of the appellant in the examination in question was declared in the Gazette.
(2) That under section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, the appellant was entitled to be represented by a counsel in the proceedings before the Discipline Committee, but inasmuch as he had been denied this facility although he asked for it, the afore said proceedings were illegal.
5. Taking the second question first we may state at once that Mr. Noor Ahmad Noori, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing for the appellant, frankly stated that he would not press this ground. The question is misconceived and Mr. Noori is well-advised not to press it. Section 22 of the said Act is as follows :- "22. Right of Advocates to practise.-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall be entitled to practise the profession of law unless he is an advocate.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act the rules made thereunder and any other law for the time being in force-
(a) an Advocate of the Supreme Court or a High Court shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout Pakistan, and to appear, act and plead before any Court or Tribunal in Pakistan; and
(b) any other Advocate shall be entitled as of right to practise through-- out the Province or Provinces for which the Bar Council, on whose roll his name is entered, has been constituted and to appear, act and plead before any Court or Tribunal in such Province or Provinces other than the High Court"
6. Evidently, the section does not support the second ground upon which leave was granted. It speaks about right of an Advocate to appear before a Court or Tribunal, and makes it subject, inter alia, to any other Law for the time being in force. Rule 6.17 (v) of the Rules framed under section 20 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance, 1961, clearly prescribes that no lawyer or next friend shall be allowed to appear on behalf of or assist an accused candidate during enquiry or appeal under the Rules. The Discipline Committee was, therefore, competent to disallow representation of the appellant by a counsel. The section gives no right to the appellant to be represented by a counsel.
7. As regards the applicability of rule 8 (iv) of the Rules there is nothing in the Rules which says that it is only applicable before the result of the particular candidate has been announced or gazetted.
8. The relevant portion of Rule 8(iv) runs as follows :- "8. If a candidate is found guilty of any of the following offences he shall be disqualified from passing that examination and from appearing in three immediately following examinations (Annual and Supplementary); (i)---------------------------..
(ii) ---------------------------... .
9. (iii)------------------------------
(iv) inducing or attempting to induce, directly or indirectly, any official of the Board of any person engaged in connection with an examina--petition to give any kind of undue assistance to him including disclosure of guarded information ;"
10. Giving the rule its plain meaning as required under the rules of construc--petition it applies to a candidate if he is found guilty of the offence mentioned therein. No limitation as has been canvassed for is spelt out in the section.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that the Result Gazette itself bears the following:- "Any entry appearing in this notification does not in itself confer any right or privilege to a candidate for the grant of the certificate which will be issued under the regulations on the basis of the original record in the Board's office."
12. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court, therefore, rightly observed that the entries in the Result Gazette are not clothed with unfettered sanctity. He further observed that the act of inducement mentioned in the rule was done at a time when the result had not been declared. Besides, if the interpretation sought to be put on the rule be accepted it will resist in the candidate securing benefit from his own wrong, if somehow the wrong escaped the notice of the authorities before the result was declared. Such interpretation is neither reasonable nor appears to be the intention of the author of the rules. It could not be the intention of the author that the wrong committed by the candidate should go unpunished, if the result has already been declared. No such intention is spelt out in the rule. I, there--fore, agree with the interpretation put by the learned Chief Justice that the authorities were competent to take action under rule 8 even after the declaration of the result. Rule 18 of the Rules supports this position for it empowers the Board to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared if he has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examina-- petition.
13. It has also been contended before us that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to meet the charge against him inasmuch as he was neither supplied with nor shown the copies of the statements made by the head and sub-examiners.
14. The appellant was fully informed about the allegations against him, and adequate opportunity was given to him to meet them. He was personally present before the Discipline Committee, and later before the Jury of appeal. The statements of the said two examiners were produced before both the bodies as is evident from their orders. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the appellant was totally ignorant of those statements. We fully agree with the learned Chief Justice that sufficient opportunity was, indeed, given to the appellant to defend himself and there was, therefore, no contravention of any principles of natural justice. In this connection it is of advantage to bear in mind the following observations of this Court in the case of University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90) :-- "Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him. Such a person or authority can obtain information in any way it thinks fit, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudi--cial to him."
15. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The Jury of Appeal went out of the way to order fresh examination of the Social Studies paper by another examiner in their desire to satisfy the appellant that he was not dealt with unjustly. The result of this re-examination confirmed the fact that the inflation of the marks was due to collusion between the appellant and the two examiners.
16. It should be mentioned here that action was also taken against the two examiners. The inflation of marks was manifestly for the benefit of the appellant. Under rule 40 of the Rules the head--- examiner cannot himself increase or decrease the marks assigned by the sub-examiner. He has to refer the matter to the Chairman who may appoint a third examiner whose award shall be final or refer to the Committee of courses for decision subject to final approval by the Chairman. In these circumstances it is legitimate to infer that the inflation was made on the inducement of the appellant.
17. There is no substance in the appeal and I would, accordingly, dismiss it, but without any order as to costs.