CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner appeared in Intermediate Annual Examination, 1999 under Roll No. 5020 held by the respondents.
The respondents also allotted Centre No. 147-F (Govt. Islamia College for Women, Cooper Road, Lahore). Respondent No. 1 received a complaint against the petitioner with regard to use of un-fair means who sent the same to the Chief Secrecy Officer for report. The Chief Secrecy Officer on 17.5.1999 submitted a report to respondent No. 1 which reveals that addl. Sheets attached by the petitioner with answer book of English Part-II found to have been written other than candidate which were smuggled in the Centre after the time of paper was over in connivance with supervisory staff. Respondent No. 1 constituted a committee consisting of Ch. Muhammad lkram and Mrs. Farzana Shaheen to prober into the matter. The Chief Secrecy Office also sent another report to respondent No. 1 which reveals that answer book of Chemistry Part-II of the petitioner had been found in the Bundle of Urdu Part-II. Respondent No. 1 directed the office to register un-fair mean case against the petitioner. The aforesaid committee also sent report to respondent No 1 which reveals that petitioner committed un-fair means in the said examination in connivance with the supervisory staff Office of respondents lodged FIR at Police Station Qilla Gujjar Singh against the culprits on 21.5.1999. Two charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner regrading the un-fair means committed by the petitioner on 12.6.1999 under Rule under 6.8(iv) and 6.8(vi) and under Rule 6.8
(VIII) and 6.9 respectively. The petitioner submitted replies of the aforesaid charge-sheets controverted the allegations levelled in the charge sheets. The Disciplinary Committee after recording the statement and providing personal hearing to the petitioner disqualified the petitioner from passing this examination and two subsequent examinations vide order dated 15.11.1999.
Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the appellate committee who also dismissed the same after providing personal hearing to the petitioner and after recording her statement on 3.5.2000. Petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the revision committee who after providing personal hearing to the petitioner and after recording statement rejected the same vide order dated 10.6.2000. Petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the Tribunals below have decided the case against the petitioner on surmises and conjectures. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1971 S.C. 838 (Summer Pervaiz's case). He further submits that no action had been taken against the supervisory staff and employees of the Board.
He further submits that petitioner appeared in the examination in the allotted centre and action of the respondents is in violation of the instructions of the respondents as the respondents did not register unfair means case against the petitioner in the centre.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that all the Tribunals below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the Tribunal below in Constitutional jurisdiction. He further urged that petitioner is a beneficiary as the petitioner had committed un-fair means with the connivance of the supervisory staff. He further urged that petitioner had not alleged any specific allegations of malice against the respondents. He further urgdd that disqualification period has already been expired.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that all the Tribunals below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:- 1974 SCMR 279 PLD 1981 S.C. 246 (Muhammad Sharif's case) PLD 1981 S.C. 522 (Abdul Rehman Bajwa's case).
It is also settled proposition of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of the finding of the Tribunal below as per principle laid down by the Division. Bench of this Court in Mussaduq's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600). Petitioner has alleged general allegations of malice against the respondent which is not permissible in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saeed Ahmad's case (PLD 1974 S.C. 151) and Amanullah Khan's case (PLD 1990 S.C. 1092). In this view of the matter, there is no allegation of ma/a fide against the respondents. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by this, Court in Saeed Nawaz's case (PLD 1981 Lahore 371). The respondents did not violate of their own rules and regulation. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable- as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I Mir's case (1984 SCMR 433). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. It is very strange to note that on account of bad action of the official/offices of the respondents did not take any final action against their -official/officers. It is pertinent to mention here that students cannot be in a position to use un-fair means in the examination without the active support of supervisory staff examiners, employees of Board. In this view of the matter, let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman Board concerned to hold inquiry as to how it happened that addl. Sheets were smuggled -outside the centre and then same attached with the main answer book in question. This shows that there are some loope holes in the system of examination conducted by the Board which need to' be immediately plugged to attach respectable status to the academic certificates* issued by the Board. If need be, the Board can recourse to criminal or disciplinary action if any of its employee is found to be guilty in helping the petitioner to commit unfair means in the centre or outside the centre. The Chairman of the Board shall after holding comprehensive and detailed inquiry will send his finding to the Addl. Registrar of this Court so that if necessary further action may be initiated to uphold the sanctity of the system of Educational Institutions in the Country. Copy of this order is also directed to send to the Secretary Education (Controlling Authority) who is directed to look into the matter what is happening in the Board and Universities qua the system of conduct of examinations. The students are penalized ultimately but no action is finally taken against the real culprits who are instruments to provide facility to the students to commit unfair means and take, necessary measures to stop this practice.