KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- Petitioner appeared in the F.SC. (Pre-Engineering) Examination Part-I Annual 1998 as a regular student under Roll No. 4598 and passed the same by securing 423/500 marks, Petitioner appeared in the Second Part of the same Examination in the year 1999 under Roll No. 30792. An unfairmeans case was prepared against the petitioner and the charge- sheet duly served upon the petitioner (Copy Annex B/1), which stated that while appearing in the Chemistry-II Paper in the Annual Examination, 1999 under Roll No. 30792 on 13.5.1999, the petitioner was found in possession of illegal material. Charge sheet mentioned rule 5(ii). The petitioner accepted this punishment and after suffering the same, sent his application form to take the second part of the F.Sc. Examination held in the year 2000. The application form was accepted and roll number slip No. 33515 was issued. The result card. (Annex E) dated 31.8.2000 was issued to the petitioner and the same indicated that the petitioner has passed the Part-II Examination by securing 428/500 marks. However, the same card showed him absent in the part examination and therefore, was declared "full fail and will appear next time in full subjects". In this Constitutional petition this part of the result card is sought to be declared as without lawful authority.
2. It is contended that the Board acted under rule 5 appearing at Chapter-5 in the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, Volume-1 and II, First Edition, 1992, which enabled the Board to disqualify the candidate "from passing that particular examination and from appearing in the immediately following examination (Spring and Autumn) if the offence is intentional". The argument is that the Board could and in fact did disqualify the petitioner from the Annual 1999 and Supplementary, 1999 Examinations and did never disqualify or cancel the result. Of Part-I Examination which, in any case, was never in dispute.
3. In its reply/comments, the respondent-Board claims that impugned action is valid and has been taken under para 38 of Notification No. 1, dated 4.2.1998 which has overriding effect. Para 38 reads:- {{URDU TEXT}} n Jr b/ ZIntCt.. 1/4 ) )%.1.0 JI:V/1 Lt.' Lc LA, .n1 y
4. The charge-sheet/show-cause notice is Annex "B/1". It is a printed form, which reproduces the relevant rules concerning offences and punishments. It does not contain or refer to para 38. This charge-sheet to the petitioner mentions rule 5(ii) which conveys the message as to why action under rule 5(ii) be not taken on account of the petitioner having been fond in possession of illegitimate material while appearing in the subject of Chemistry Part-II in the F.Sc. Examination under Roll No. 30792. The decision of the . Committee as conveyed to the petitioner is Annex "C" and it again expressly states that:- t {{URDU TEXT}} ii.307297? j3A..Iti; 4rric.- l..1.Cr"
'....J.1).t)it (5-0 1999? C 1999,z 13).1../.51'7A; It will be seen that at no stage the Board notified the petitioner that he should show-cause against the cancellation of the result of Part-I Examination nor in fact the Disciplinary Committee cancelled the result of the examination in which the petitioner appeared under Roll No. 30792 in Annual, 1998.
Petitioner appeared in Part-II Examination in Annual, 1999 under Roll No. 4598. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in emphasizing upon the use of word "particular" in rule 5(ii). The word particular would confine again to the examination in which the candidate pas found in possession of illegitimate material or using other unfair means. - Learned counsel for the Board has argued that expression "Examination" in rule 5(ii) means an examination which leads to the issue of a certificate or decree and according to him, F.Sc. Certificate is issued on the basis of the result of Part-I and Part-II Examination and hence the Board could cancel the result of Part-I Examination and has rightly done so. This argument cannot be accepted as the rule under examination is penal in nature, it will have to be construed strictly and against the respondents. The use of the word "particular" before the expression "examination" does not support the interpretation sought by learned counsel of the Board. The argument is otherwise illogical as examination of F,Sc. Part-I is not in dispute and it has become a past and closed transaction. There does not seem to be any logic or reason that for employing unfair means in subsequent paper of Chemistry, the result of undisputed examination be also annulled. The action taken, therefore, cannot be justified under Rule 5(ii).
6. It is correct that para 38 of Notification No. 1 of 1998, Annex R.4 to the parawise comments, does state that for employing unfair means in Part-II Examination the result of Part-I Examination, will be deemed to be annulled but the Board never intimate the petitioner that this action will also be taken or will be deemed to have been taken. The charge-sheet is Annex "B/1" and it does not mention para 38. In fact the charge-sheet is rather sketchy and while the clerk who fills the entries in the printed form may be familiar to the full implication of the entries, but for a student not familiar with the legal intricacies, it is difficult to understand the same. However, what is noticeable is that while rule 5(ii) is mentioned, there is no reference to para 38. The punishment is also mentioned in rule 5(ii) and it is so mentioned in Annex "C", the communication of the decision of the Committee. Therefore, subsequently it is not open to the Board to fall back upon para 38 and to extend the punishment, which was not imposed by the Disciplinary Committee. It was for the Committee to act under Section 5(ii) as well as under para 38 and to pass which ought to have been conveyed to the petitioner. It may also be noticed that subsequently the petitioner's form for taking Part-II Examination in the year 2000 was accepted without objection. Not only accepted, but a roll number issued and the result of part-II declared. It was not open to the functionaries of the Board preparing and accounting the result of part-II Examination to also hold that the result of Part-I Examination stands annulled and even if they could so declare. a prior notice to that effect had to be given to the petitioner. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on Haq Nawaz v. The Province of Punjab through Secretary, Home- Department, Lahore and others (PLD 1976 Lah. 1013), and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Ala-ud-Din and another (1972 SCM R 13) is appropriate.
7. For the above noted reasons, this petition is allowed and it is declared that in the result card (Annex "E") dated 31.8.2000 the petitioner has wrongly been shown as absent in Part-I Examination.
It is further declared that result of Part-I Examination of the petitioner is intact. The respondent-Board is directed to issue the revised result in the light of this judgment within fifteen days from the date of announcement of this judgment. No order as to costs.