1. ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J.--- The petitioner Syed Shahan Aurangzeb, had passed higher secondary certificate Parts I and II, examinations of 1995 from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad under Seat No.69321. He had produced a marks certificate before the Principal Liaquat Medical College, who was also the Chairman of Selection Board of admission to first year M.B.,B.S., classes, showing that he had secured 786 marks. That marks certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad as Marks Sheet No.025900 of Book No.259 on 30-1-1996.
2. On the basis of such certificate, petitioner was admitted to first year M.B.,B.S. class as he was found eligible to admission an the basis of the number of the marks secured by him from District Sanghar, in comparison to other candidates under the policy and provisions prevailing at that time for admission to First. Year M.B.,B.S., course of Liaquat Medical College. The petitioner deposited the fees on 6-3-1996 and started attending the classes for the Session 1996-97.
3. On 14-5-1996, the admission allowed to the petitioner was cancelled by the Selection Committee, and such order was passed and copy thereof was communicated to the petitioner. The reason for the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner was that when the marks certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission, was sent to the Controller of Examinations Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, for re-verification, the Controller had informed the Selection Committee that the said marks certificate was bogus and tampered, as the actual marks secured by the petitioner were 770 and not 786 as mentioned in the certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of admission.
4. Before cancellation of admission of the petitioner the Principal and the Chairman of the Selection Committee, Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro, had issued a show-cause notice to him under the rules mentioned in the prospectus of the College. The petitioner did not care to reply to the said show-cause notice within the stipulated period of 14 days. The petitioner was called upon to return his College Identity Card, Library Books if outstanding against his name.
5. ' The petitioner challenged such order of the Selection Committee cancelling his admission by this petition on 24-7-1996 contending that since the petitioner had been allowed admission after looking into the documents, and that the original documents submitted by him were verified on the spot on the date of interview by the Committee and, therefore, the impugned order was mala fide, illegal, against natural justice and that it had taken away the legal right of the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged that there was no forgery committed by the petitioner, that he had not committed any interpolation in his marks and that since he was attending the classes, the cancellation of his admission at that stage was illegal. He made the following prayers in the petition:-- "(a) Declare that the Office Order No.LMC/Admission-5261/63, dated 14-5-1996 is mala fide and without lawful authority.
(b) Grant Permanent Injunction restraining the respondent No.1, from acting upon the abovesaid order.
(c) Cost of the petition.
(d) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper."
6. The petition was admitted on 9-12-1996 as the petitioner's counsel had relied on the authority reported in 1989 M LD 1903. On a Miscellaneous application moved by the petitioner, petitioner was permitted to appear in the classes on his own risk and cost and it was also ordered on 14-1-1997 that his result will not be declared till further orders by this Court.
7. The respondent No.4, Controller of Examinations, filed his counter-affidavit, specifically denying that the petitioner had secured 786 marks and contended that the confirmed marks secured by the petitioner were 770 and that on such marks he was not entitled to the admission and that the certificate produced by the petitioner showing 786 marks was not correct and that it was a manipulated one. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was provisionally admitted and that on verification of his actual marks he was not found entitled to the admission and, therefore, his admission was cancelled. It was expressly contended that on verification of the marks sheet from the board it was found that the petitioner had produced a manipulated marks sheet, with the intention to defraud the Selection Committee, and that the petitioner had thereby usurped the right of somebody else who lost the privilege of getting admission in his place. The Controller of Examinations placed on record the actual marks certificate, which was sent to College Authorities by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad on their request, which showed that the petitioner had secured 770 marks. In a rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner reiterated his position and alleged that the respondent Controller of Examinations had relied on a false marks certificate showing 770 marks which was, according to him, managed by the respondents.
8. In obedience to the order of this Court, dated 19-2-1998, an inquiry was held by the Principal Liaquat Medical College Jamshoro in which the tampered marks sheet was to be compared with the official record, after due notice to the petitioner. The Principal mentioned in his subsequent order passed by him in obedience to the directions of the Court that the petitioner was called upon to obtain a fresh marks sheet from the board and produce the same before the Enquiry Committee. The Controller of Examinations Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad was also called to attend the Enquiry. The petitioner obtained a fresh marks certificate which was issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad. The fresh marks certificate was produced by the petitioner at the time of enquiry and it showed that his marks were 770, which as a corollary proved that the certificate showing number of marks as 786, had been result of tampering. In subsequent comments filed by respondent No.1, the marks of the petitioner were found to be the result of tampering, as given in the following table:-- "Marks Tampered in S.S.C. Part I as under :-- English Paper I Urdu Paper I Chemistry Paper I ActualTamperedActualTamperedActualTampered 51 57 82 87 51 56 After such inquiry and second order further comments were filed by the Principal and Chairman of the Selection Committee, in which it was again held that the petitioner was not entitled to the admission as he had failed to bring any proof that he had originally obtained 786 marks and that his actual marks being 770, he was not entitled to admission according to the merit list of the candidates of District Sanghar, to which he belonged, as he had lesser marks than other candidates.
9. When this case came up before us for regular hearing we directed the respondent No.3/Controller of Examinations of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad to produce the original Marks Sheet/Register containing the marks of the petitioner relating to this case. Ultimately we directed the personal appearance of the Chairman of Board of intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad. On 16-9-1998, Professor Ms. Mustajab Zohra, the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, along with Hafiz Arshad, the Controller of Examinations in Board of intermediate and Secondary Education personally appeared and brought the original register in which the marks obtained by the petitioner in the relevant examination were tabulated. The other original record brought by the Chairman and the Controller of Examinations was the tabulation sheet, in respect of the subjects in which the petitioner had appeared, and the tabulation sheet showed in words the actual marks obtained by the petitioner in the relevant subjects. These original documents were produced in Court on the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner as his contention was that there might be some manipulation in the original record of the board as according to him the total number of marks obtained by the petitioner was 786 and that the record could prove that they have been manipulated to show as
770. We checked the record produced by the Professor Ms. Mustajab Zohra, the Chairperson of the Board of intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad and the Controller of Examinations, Hafiz Arshad, who both were satisfied with correctness of the entries in the record. We were also convinced after inspecting the original record that there was no mistake nor any manipulation, and that in fact the petitioner had obtained only 770 marks in his examination and the certificate issued to him showing the total number of the marks to be 786 was a manipulation and was not based on the record available with the Board of intermediate and Secondary Education.
10. In fact after the order passed by this Court on 19-2-1998, the enquiry report submitted by the Principal in response to the Court's directions was enough to be relied upon by the Court for dismissing the petition but since there was a mention in the inquiry report that Controller of the Examinations had not cooperated and had not appeared before the Principal, with the record, we thought there was possibility of the fact that some employees of the Board of intermediate and Secondary Education, were involved in the racket of issuing incorrect certificates, we had taken up on ourselves to check the record. We had heard this matter on 17-9-1998 when the counsel for the petitioner Syed Jehangir Hussain Shah, had taken our leave not to be present next day as he had to leave for America, but the father of the petitioner Syed Ibrahim Shah, attended, on the next day. He was present during the proceedings of the inspection of the record and had participated in the proceedings and replied to the queries of the Court. He was shown and confronted with the original ledger, the tabulation forms, and the original entries in respect of the marks obtained by the petitioner. His explanation was merely that first certificate containing total marks 786 was also issued to the petitioner by the Board; therefore, it could not be wrong.
11. We were satisfied on careful examination of the above named record as well as the statement made by the Chairman and the Controller of Examinations of the Board of intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, that the first certificate bearing total marks of 786 must have been manipulated by the petitioner in collusion with some of the employees of the board.
12. Therefore, we leave it to the Chairman of the board to find out through a thorough enquiry which may be ordered by herself, or if the Chairman considers it necessary, she may get the investigation carried out through police so that delinquent be punished and the name of the prestigious institution like the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, be vindicated. If the evidence be available, all persons including the " candidates who maneuvered the forged certificates, be brought to book. We expect that the Chairman shall be strict and vigilant in this respect, to avoid such happenings in future.
13. Since we have come to the conclusion that petitioner had obtained admission on a manipulated and incorrect marks certificate and that his admission was cancelled at the earliest opportunity on the verification of his certificate, we do not agree with the view taken in the case of Wasim Ansari v.
14. Liaquat Medical College, reported as 1989 M LD 1903. We cannot allow the petitioner to continue his studies obtained by him on the basis of a manipulated marks certificate, nor can we quash the decision of the Principal and the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
15. As regards the absence of the Chairman on the last date of hearing before us, for which we had issued a contempt notice, she has placed before us the explanation and unconditional apology, which we accept and discharge.