' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination Pre-Engineering Annual, 1996 under Roll No, 29654 at Examination Centre Lasal High School, Faisalabad and passed in all papers except Physics. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his admission form for another (supplementary) Examination, 1996 and appeared in Physics Paper under Roll No,812. Respondents declared the petitioner successful and secured 808 marks out of 1100 and got admission in the Punjab University in Chemical Engineering. After the declaration of the result complaint was received in the office of the respondents on 28-3-1998 which reveals that 16 candidates including the petitioner have got higher marks by using unfair means. The competent Authority constituted a committee to probe into the matter and the Committee checked the office record and found that the petitioner appeared only in the subject of Islamic Education at his allotted Examination Centre i,e, Lasal High School, Faisalabad Centre No, 35 and remained absent in the other papers. The petitioner managed to send his. Answer Books through the Centre Superintendent, Government M.C.I. School, Allama Iqbal Road Centre No,
24. The Inquiry Committee sent notice to the petitioner on 21-7-1998 to appear in person along with the written statement before the Committee on 27-7-1998. The petitioner sent his reply but did not appear personally before the said Committee. The Inquiry Committee sent another notice to the petitioner on 12-8-1998 but the petitioner did not appear in person. Inquiry Committee sent another notice on 12-8-1998 to the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 17-8-1998. The petitioner did not appear in person before the Committee. The Committee sent his recommendations to the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner and others under the provisions of the Board Calendar Rule No, 5(18). The competent Authority sent a show-cause notice to the petitioner to appear in person before the competent Authority on 26-11-1999 but the petitioner did not enter appearance and the competent Authority sent another show-cause notice to the petitioner for appearance before the Authority on 13-12-1999 in person alongwith his written reply. The petitioner appeared before the Authority in person and he also examined the record. The competent Authority finally cancelled the certificate of the petitioner vide notification, dated 30-12-1999, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondent is without lawful authority as the impugned notification was issued without providing proper hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents issued N.O.C. To the petitioner on 20th February, 1997 and on 25-11-1997, therefore, vested right accrued to the petitioner and the principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in all respects. The petitioner appeared in the First Professional Examination of B.Sc. Chemical Engineering in 1999 and passed the said Examination under Roll No, 45 with 682 Marks out of 1200 marks, therefore, action of the respondents is in violation of rules of the respondents as the respondents did not give due weight to the subsequent even that petitioner passed the First Year Examination of B.Sc. Of Chemical Engineering in good marks. He further submits that petitioner could not appear in a particular Centre of his own choice without the permission or allocation of the Centre of the respondents. The petitioner appeared in the Examination and passed the Examination in good marks without using any unfair means. The Attendance Register attached by the respondents with their report and paradise comments is fabricated. He further submits that action of the respondents is based on surmises and conjectures. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:--- ' Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate etc. PLD 1971 SC 838; PLD 1966 Kar. 481; Mian Kovits Kumari v.
Board of Intermediate PLD 1987 Kar. 688; The Controller of Examination, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 3 others v. Shamim Akbar 1986 SCMR 1526.
' He further submits that complainant did not appear before the Inquiry Committee and the respondents did not allow opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. The whole story of the respondents falls on the ground automatically in the absence of the statement of the complainant. In support of this contention he relied upon the following judgment :--- ' Muhammad Zahur v. Vice-Chancellor University of the Punjab and others 1988 MLD 700.
' He further urged that vested right has accrued to the petitioner and the respondents have no authority to cancel the certificate of the petitioner on the well-known principle of past and close transaction. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:--- ' Shahid Saleed v. Board of Intermediate etc. 1987 MLD 3053; Munir Ahmad v. University of Baluchistan through the Controller of Examination etc. PLD 1979 Quetta 131.
' He further submits that respondents did not consider the future and previous academic record of the petitioner thereof impugned notification is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he relied on Muazzam Nasir Chanda v. Board, of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman (1998 CLC 627).
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court and is not entitled to any discretionary relief. He further submits that petitioner appeared managed to send his Answer Books from Centre No, 24 which was not allotted to the petitioner by the respondents as is evident from the Attendance Register, identification sheet Annexure R/3 and petitioner appeared only in one paper from the allotted Centre No, .35 in Islamyat paper and was shown absent in all other papers in the attendance sheet of Centre No, 35 as is evident from Annexure R/2. He further submits that action of the respondents is in accordance with law and the petitioner's counsel failed to point out that the action was taken against the petitioner in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the respondents. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:- ' Farukh Din and others v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 2000 Kar, 154; Muhammad Yasin v.
The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan through Chairman 1997 CLC 587, Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 1991 SC 691; Sakhi Ahmad Khan v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad 1999 MLD 3410.
' He further submits that petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Annual Examination, 1995 under Roll No, 3979 and failed in all subjects.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioner did not allege any specific allegation of mala fide against the respondent, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by this Court in PLD 1981 Lahore 371, Saeed Nawaz' case. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any violation committed by the respondents of their Rules and Regulations by taking action against the petitioner, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as principle laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Akhtar Mir's case 1984 SCMR 433. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the Tribunal below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Massaduq's case PLD 1973 Lahore 600. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was allotted Centre No, 35 and he appeared from the Centre only in one paper of Islamic Studies as is evident from Annexure R/2. The petitioner sent his Answer Books through the Centre Superintendent of Centre No,24 as is evident from Annexure R/3 which was not allotted to the petitioner by the respondents.
The petitioner failed to dislodge the stand of the respondents as the documentary evidence is against the petitioner. In view of the documentary evidence the action of the respondent is not based on surmises and conjectures. Even otherwise in such-like cases the respondents can take action against a candidate on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following reported judgment:--- ' Zafar Ullah v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education PLD 1981 Lahore 244.
' The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in reported judgment 1982 SCMR 571 (Zafar Ullah v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and another). It is also settled proposition of law that if the order is illegal then perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of an illegal order and the principle of locus penitential is not attracted as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalal-ud-Din's case PLD 1992 SC 207. The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the following judgments:--- ' Rahat Siddiqui's case PLD 1975 Lahore 257 which was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in reported judgment 1977 SCMR 213 (Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another). The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law, therefore, cited judgments are not relevant to resolve the present controversy. I do not wish to advert to the pleas from either side based on petitioner's academic brilliance or otherwise. This is not a matter of argument but rests on performance best judged by the Examiners Miss Shazia Umar Chaudhry also appeared in the said Examination whose Roll Number is also mentioned in the complaint and her certificate was also cancelled by the respondent Board who filed Writ Petition No,5787 of 2000 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment, dated 18-4-2000. Consistency demands that this writ petition may also be dismissed as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9.
' In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.