' Petitioner passed Intermediate Examination in the year 1991 from respondent Board. His elder brother namely Wali Muhammad appeared in the same examination in the year 1990. On the complaint received in December, 1990 to the effect that instead of Wali Muhammad the real examinee, it is the petitioner who took the examination by impersonating as Wali Muhammad, proceedings commenced against Wali Muhammad and I am informed that after due inquiry etc., his result has been cancelled and he has also been further debarred from taking examination. In so far as Wali Muhammad is concerned, the action seems to have attained finality. Respondent- Board also initiated proceedings against the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why the result of his Intermediate Examination be also not cancelled on the charge of having impersonated as Wali Muhammad and having so taken the examination. The case of the petitioner is that no notice for defending the allegations was given to the petitioner and that when the petitioner learnt of the action, dated 20-12-1997, cancelling the result, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 15-6-1998 as being barred by time. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition calling in question the validity of the orders, dated 20-12-1997 (Annexure 'A') and 15-6-1998 (Annexure 'D').
2. It is contended by the learned counsel (i) that the action taken against the petitioner is without notice, and therefore, void in law; (ii) that under Regulation 18 in Chapter 5 of the Calendar of the Board, the result could not have quashed after four years from the date of detection and (iii) the action is motivated on religious and sectarian reasons as the petitioner is a Member of Sipha-e- Sahaba.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-Board has placed on record photo copies of the relevant record and during the course of his submissions he has stated that repeated notices were issued to the petitioner, which were received by person available in his house but in spite of it the petitioner did not enter appearance. He further submitted that in his absence the Board held proper inquiries and after comparing the writing on the scripts of the petitioner and his brother Wali Muhammad came to the conclusion that they were in one and the same handwriting. He has urged that the limitation of taking action within four years in upon the powers of the Chairman under the Regulation but no such limitation appears on the powers of the Board under Regulations 10(VI) headed "Impersonation", in Chapter 6 of the Calendar. The allegations of biased treatment on account of the petitioner being member of Sipha-e-Sahaba has been denied and it is stated that the Board as a legal entity has nothing to do with religious belief of the students.
4. The perusal of the documents placed on record by the respondent-Board shows that from time to time notices were issued to the petitioner which did reach at the addresses but were not received on various grounds including that the petitioner was away to Karachi and was not at home. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to deny the correctness of the addresses written on the various notices/envelopes. It is clear that the respondent-Board made full efforts to notify the petitioner and if in spite of number of communications the petitioner chose to remain away, he did so at his own risk. In this connection it is relevant to note that in the memo of appeal addressed to Chairman (Annexure 'C' page 10) the petitioner has not denied the allegations in so many words. Para. 3 of the appeal is reproduced:-- ' "I was about 17 years in old 1989 and as such I was immatured and quite ignorant about the responsibilities of the practical life. I lacked sense and was enticed to do so."
5. It seems that the question of absence of notice is irrelevant in the circumstance. In any case there is ample material on the record to conclude that respondent-Board made all reasonable efforts to serve the petitioner with the allegations and to call upon him to answer the same.
6. In order to appreciate the next contention of the learned counsel it is profitable to reproduce the relevant Regulations relied by the learned counsel for the parties:-
(18) Chairman's Power to quash result.
' "The Chairman shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared and cancel the certificate accordingly if already result issued.
(1) If he/she has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination or
(2) if a mistake is found in his/her result or
(3) if it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination or
(4) for Fraud, Forgery and Impersonation that may be determined by the Chairman: ' Provided that the orders of quashing the result is issued not later than four years from the date of detection of the result of the examination concerned offence mentioned 1 to 4".
' Regulation 10(6) reads as follows:-- ' "If any student regular or private, who passed any examination of the Board in any session, is found guilty of impersonation, the Board may cancel his/her diploma or certificate and take such other action as it may deem fit: ' Provided that if the impersonator has passed his examination from another Board, his certificate/diploma will be cancelled by the parent Board on the recommendations of the Board concerned."
7. The collective reading of the two Regulations clearly establishes the point made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Board. Under Regulation 18 it is the Chairman, who can quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared but this power is available to the Chairman for four years 'from the date of detection'. Impersonation is a separate misconduct and power to deal with it vests in 'the Board and no period is prescribed within which this power can be exercised. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, of no consequence. I may add that there is a clear rationale underneath Regulation 10(VI). No amount of delay should be enough to cover the misdeeds of an impersonator. The law maker has, therefore, deliberately not confined the exercise of powers to a limited period as it has done in the case of the candidate under Regulation
18. I hold that the Board could have taken the action against the impersonator at any time.
8. The third argument of the learned counsel cannot be said to have been substantiated as there is no material whatsoever on the record to show that Board acted in this matter on account of sectarian and religious beliefs of the petitioner. This ground has even not been spelt out in the petition itself.
9. For all the reasons stated above; there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.