Divinity, Law and medicine have always been considered to be the noblest of professions. Whether the petitioner was qualified for and also whether the petitioner had conducted himself in a manner worthy of entry to the education and exalted practice of medicine are questions which have inter alia come up for consideration in this case in the following circumstances.
2. After successfully passing his Secondary School Certificate Examination (Matriculation) in the year 1986 the petitioner studied for Intermediate (Pre-Medical) and appeared in the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1988 conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan (hereinafter referred to as the Multan Board) under Roll No,135 as a regular candidate of Government Degree College, Dera Ghazi Khan. The result of that examination declared by the Multan Board pronounced him as FAIL "as a whole" and a result card was issued by the Multan Board to him in that regard.
3. The petitioner did not give up. He again appeared in the Intermediate (Supplementary)
Examination, 1988 conducted by the Multan Board under Roll No,64 as a private candidate. This time he failed in four subjects and was expressly allowed by the Multan Board to clear those four subjects up to the Intermediate (Supplementary) Examination, 1989. A result card was again issued by the Multan Board to him in that regard.
4. The petitioner ventured again to appear in the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1989 conducted by the Multan Board under Roll No,696 as a private candidate but on account of his failure to sit in that examination his attempt in that regard proved abortive. Thus, as per the earlier intimation to him by the Multan Board, he was left with his last chance for clearing the failed subjects in the Intermediate (Supplementary) Examination, 1989.
5. During this while a Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education was established at Dera Ghazi Khan and the petitioner, after foregoing his last chance of appearance before the Multan Board, diverted his attention towards the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dera Ghazi Khan (hereinafter referred to as the D.G. Khan Board). He appeared in the Intermediate (Supplementary) Examination, 1989 conducted by the D.G. Khan Board under Roll No,84 as a private and a fresh candidate in all the subjects. He succeeded this time and was declared as PASS with 629/1100 marks. A result card was issued by the D.G. Khan Board to him in that respect. It is, however, relevant to point out that this was achieved by the petitioner by suppression of a critical information inasmuch as in his admission form for the said examination the petitioner had crossed out column No,12 which was relevant to candidates like the petitioner wh had already passed in some of the Intermediate subjects and had been ex ressly authorised to clear the remaining subjects. The petitioner also signed a declaration on oath in that admission form regarding correctness of the information supplied therein. A correct information supplied by the petitioner in the said column would not have made it possible for the petitioner to appear in all the subjects in that examination. Thus, a little deception did the trick for the petitioner!
6. The petitioner then appeared in 'the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1990 conducted by the D.G. Khan Board under Roll No,1904 as a marks-improving candidate in all the subjects. He succeeded therein and improved his marks to 702/1100. A result card was again issued by the D.G.
Khan Board to him in that regard. Once again, in his admission form for that examination the petitioner completely suppressed all information about his ventures and escapades with the Multan Board. Totally against the record, his admission form this time depicted him as a candidate trying innocently 'for improvement of his marks obtained in his first attempt. The petitioner had falsely signed a declaration on oath in that admission form regarding correctness of the information supplied therein. This further success in deception further emboldened the petitioner for further and bigger deceptions.
7. It is pertinent to note that by that time, whether through deception or otherwise, the petitioner had completely exhausted all his permissible opportunities be it appearance as a fresh candidate in all the subjects, as a candidate clearing his failed subjects or even as a candidate trying to improve his marks both at the Multan Board and the D.G. Khan Board. The provisions of Rules 9(1) and 17 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan Rules amply testify to this legal position. It has not been disputed before me that the said Rules have been adopted by the D.G. Khan Board and the same, are being followed by it consistently ever since its establishment.
8. Still later, undeterred by the law on the subject, the petitioner managed to appear in the Intermediate (Supplementary) Examination, 1990 conducted by the D.G. Khan Board under Roll No,337 as a marks-improving candidate in all the subjects and succeeded in obtaining 770/1100 marks. Oblivious of the petitioner's deceit in that regard a result card was again issued by the D.G.
Khan Board to him. Yet again, in his admission form for that examination the petitioner completely suppressed all information about his previous appearances in the Intermediate (Supplementary)
Examination, - 1988 and the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1989 conducted by the Multan Board and also about his earlier appearances in the Intermediate (Supplementary) Examination, 1989 and the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1990 conducted by the D.G. Khan Board. Once again totally against the record, his admission form this time depicted him as a candidate trying innocently for improvement of his marks obtained in his first attempt. In Column No,11 of the said admission form the petitioner had mentioned that the last Intermediate Examination taken by him was the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1988 conducted by the Multan Board! Columns Nos.12 and 14 of the said admission form, although relevant to the petitioner, were crossed out and yet again a false declaration on oath was given by the petitioner in that admission form!
9. Equipped with his improved marks in the Intermediate Examination the petitioner applied for admission to the First Year M.B.,B.S. Course 1991/92 before the Chairman, Admissions Committee, Punjab Medical Colleges, Lahore and got admitted to the Nishtar Medical College, Multan against a seat reserved for Rajanpur District. In the meanwhile, by way of a standard practice, the said Committee referred the petitioner's case to the D.G. Khan Board for verification of his result. It was during those verification proceedings that the Superintendent (Verification) of the said Board hit upon and unearthed the deceptions played by the petitioner with different Boards at different times. Consequently a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent (Permission) of the said Board on 20-5-1992 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Chairman of the D.G.
Khan Board on 7-6-1992 in that connection and to show cause orally or in writing as to why his result may not be cancelled. It was further mentioned in that notice that in case of the petitioner's failure to appear before the Chairman on the appointed date ex parte proceedings and decision would be taken in that regard. On 7-6-1992 the petitioner failed to appear before the Chairman of the D.G. Khan Board or to submit his written reply and consequently the Chairman passed an order of cancellation/quashment of the petitioner's result of the Intermediate (Supplementary)
Examination, 1990. The record of the Board produced before this Court shows that on the same day a letter intimating the petitioner about cancellation/quashment of his result was dispatched by the Board. On 16-6-1992 the Controller of Examinations of the D.G. Khan Board sent a notice to the petitioner requiring him to surrender the relevant result card on account of cancellation of his result. On 20-6-1992 the Assistant Controller (Examinations) of the D.G. Khan Board sent a letter to the Admissions Committee, Punjab Medical Colleges, Lahore about the decision of the Board regarding cancellation/quashment of the petitioner's result. On the same day the Controller of Examinations also sent a letter to the Principal, Nishtar Medical College, Multan informing him of cancellation/quashment of the petitioner's result of the Intermediate (Supplementary)
Examination, 1990 and also pointing out that the previous result of the petitioner for the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1990 remained valid for all purposes. The record of the Board further shows that on 22-6-1992 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Chairman of the D.G. Khan Board abegging mercy for himself and requesting for condonation of the violations of the Rules committed by him. On the very next day, i,e, 23-6-1992 the petitioner applied before the Board for copies of the order of cancellation/quashment of his result and the letters issued consequent thereto to the Nishtar and King Edward Medical Colleges. On 27-6-1992 the petitioner sent another letter to the Chairman of the Board again requesting, inter alia, for reconsideration of the matter of cancellation/quashment of his result. The record of the Board shows that those requests of the petitioner were put up before the Chairman and on 1-7-1992 the Chairman had decided to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for the purposes of reconsidering the matter. Resultantly, on 1-7-1992 a :show-cause notice (which unfortunately was not happily worded and did not depict the correct factual picture of the matter) was issued to the petitioner requiring him to submit his written reply within the next ten days and to appear before the Chairman in person at 10-00 a.m.
On 20-7-1992. However, without availing of that opportunity of hearing requested for by the petitioner himself, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition before this Court on 2-7-1992 and on 4-7-1992 this petition was admitted to regular hearing and operation of the impugned order/action was suspended. On 7-7-1992 the petitioner submitted his reply to the abovementioned show-cause notice issued by the Chairman of the Board on 1-7-1992 and maintained that the matter had already been taken to this Court and, therefore, the same could not be proceeded with by the Chairman of the Board any longer. That virtually brought a halt to the proceedings before the Chairman which had in fact been initiated at the request of the petitioner himself. This Writ Petition has remained pending before this Court eversince and the same is being disposed of now through the present judgment.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly urged two points in support of this petition. His first argument is that the petitioner had been condemned unheard and, therefore, the impugned order/action against the petitioner was void ab initio for having violated the cherished principle of audi alteram partem. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the relevant columns of the admission form for Intermediate Examinations held by the D.G. Khan Board were deceptive and the petitioner should not be penalised for not filling or incorrectly filling the same. As against that the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has argued that the petitioner was issued a notice and was provided ample opportunities to defend himself at every stage of the matter but the petitioner, having nothing to urge in his favour except mercy, had shied away from appearing before the relevant authorities and from putting up any plausible defence of his deceptions. He has also stressed that even during the arguments addressed in the present Writ Petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has not controverted the factual allegations levelled against the petitioner or contested, explained or justified the deceptions played and misrepresentations made by the petitioner at different stages of the matter. It has lastly been argued by him that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and, therefore, he has disentitled himself to any exercise of discretion in his favour.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I have felt no hesitation in concluding that this Writ Petition must fail. As noticed in paragraph No,9 above the petitioner was afforded ample opportunities to defend himself before as well as after the impugned order had been passed and action had been taken by the D.G. Khan Board against him.
The petitioner's failure to adequately respond to and avail of all such opportunities was also quite understandable as the evidence available against him was entirely documentary and the legal position in that regard was also crystal clear. Even during the arguments addressed before this Court the learned counsel for the petitioner could not contest, explain or, justify the deceptions played and misrepresentations made by the petitioner at different stages of the matter. Before the respondents as also before this Court the petitioner has mainly abegged pardon and mercy. But, alas, pardon and mercy alone can hardly suffice for declaring an impugned order/action to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the case of Kan Jamil Khan v. University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and others (1998 SCM R 2502), which was a case of cancellation of the result card of a student and his expulsion from a University, the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had observed as follows: "In the facts and circumstances of this case as observed, we are of the view that the impugned action ,against the petitioner is not liable to be set aside on the ground that no show-cause notice had been icsued to him or inquiry held before the impugned action was taken. The fact that the result card (showing inflated marks) has so far not been cancelled by the University of Punjab is also of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as University of Punjab had informed the University. Of Engineering and Technology that petitioner's result card shows inflated marks which had not been obtained by him and on the basis of such misleading result card, the University of Engineering and Technology was competent to expel the petitioner from the University of Engineering and Technology." The case against the present petitioner was far worse than the case referred to above. Not only that the present petitioner had been provided ample opportunities to defend himself at every stage of the matter but also that the result of the petitioner had in fact been cancelled/quashed by the relevant Board. It may also be observed in the context of the present case that an objection regarding alleged failure to issue or serve a show-cause notice by an authority before taking the impugned action loses its sting as well as relevance in a case where a petitioner fails to show good cause to this Court or is not possessed of any plausible explanation regarding the violations of law alleged against him. A legal plea like the one regarding non-issuance of a show-cause notice cannot be accepted in a vacuum and the same can seldom be made a basis for setting aside an order/action if no useful purpose is likely to be served by insisting on issuance of a show-cause notice. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case I have felt convinced that the petitioner is possessed of no valid explanation for the deceptions played and misrepresentations made by him in the matter of his Intermediate (Supplementary) Examination, 1990 and, therefore, the issue of issuance or otherwise of a show-cause, notice to him in that regard cannot clinch the issue for him.
12. As regards the other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relevant columns of the admission form for Intermediate Examinations held by the D.G. Khan Board were deceptive and the petitioner should not be penalised for not filling or incorrectly filling the same, suffice it to observe in this context that simplistic innocence attributed to the petitioner by his learned counsel is misplaced. The admission form filled by the petitioner for appearing in the Intermediate (Supplementary) Examination, 1990 was the sixth form filled by the petitioner in the series of Intermediate Examinations taken by the petitioner. It can safely be inferred that by then he had become a veteran examination taker and he fully understood the import as well as the requirements of each and every column of that admission form. Even otherwise, the very fact that in Column No,11 of his admission form for the Intermediate (Supplementary) Examination, 1990 conducted by the D.G. Khan Board the petitioner had mentioned his last taken Intermediate Examination to be the Intermediate (Annual) Examination, .1988 conducted by the Multan Board shows that the petitioner was aware that any mention of his subsequently taken Intermediate Examinations would disqualify him from appearing in that examination. Such a conscious misrepresentation on his part not only showed his full understanding of the relevant columns of the admission form but also his full awareness of the consequences entailing those entries. The factual sequence of this case mentioned in paragraphs Nos. 2 to 8 above has left no doubt in my mind that the petitioner consciously chose the path of deception for the purposes of improving his marks in the Intermediate Examination hoping that he would get away with it. Now that he has been caught and his culpability has been brought home he cannot be allowed to take refuge behind an artificial veil of innocence. Thus, upon failure of both the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ is liable to be dismissed on its merits.
13. In similar cases of deceptions played and misrepresentations made in their admission forms by candidates of different examinations conducted by the Boards or Universities and by candidates eager to get admission to colleges or universities the Courts have almost always upheld cancellation/quashment of results of such candidates or orders of expulsion from college or university. In this respect a reference may be made with advantage to the cases of Muhammad Ashraf Qadri v. Principal, King Edward Medical College etc. (PLD 1982 SC 131), Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa etc. (1983 SCM R 196) and Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another (PLD 1971 SC 838). Similarly, on questions of law and fact identical to those involved in the present case, Writ Petition No,10105 of 1992 (Shahzad Hassan v. University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and others) was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 9-3-1993 and Intra-Court Appeal No,134 of 1993 filed thereagainst was also dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 29-9-1998. I can't do any better than respectfully following these judgments which already occupy the field on questions of law and fact identical to those involved in the present Writ Petition.
14. Having failed to convince this Court on the merits of the case the learned counsel for the petitioner came up with his trump card and stated that on account of the stay order issued by this Court in the present Writ Petition way back in the year 1992 the petitioner managed to continue and complete his studies in medicine and that by now the petitioner has already become a full-fledged and duly qualified M.B.,B.S. Doctor who has also been registered with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, passionately argued that writ jurisdiction of this Court is discretionary in nature and discretion should not be exercised in this case in a manner which ruins the career and future prospects of his young doctor. I must observe that this passionate plea of the petitioner's learned counsel appears to be quite attractive at its face but on a closer examination the same is devoid of substance or appeal. It is quite true and by now universally acknowledged that writ jurisdiction of this Court is discretionary in nature. However, it must be borne in mind that this discretion comes into play only when on the merits of a given case a case is made out for issuance of a writ by this Court. Only in such a case, in the exercise of its discretion, this Court may refuse to interfere in the matter on consideration of the larger questions of justice, equity and good conscience. Such discretion is surely not available to declare something to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect if otherwise a case is not made out on the basis of a jurisdictional or legal infirmity in the impugned order/action. Thus, it must be clearly understood that in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution this Court has a discretion to issue or not to issue a writ where a case is otherwise made out for issuance of a writ on the merits of the case but this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ in its discretion where otherwise no case is made out on merits for issuance of a writ. It would be preposterous to maintain that this Court has the discretion to declare something to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect if the same is legally not so. Looked at in this backdrop the passionate plea of the petitioner's learned counsel in this case based on personal hardship and adverse effects on the petitioner's career and future prospects cannot persuade this Court to exercise its jurisdiction or discretion in the petitioner's favour where none exists in the first place. If mere sympathy for a litigant's cause is allowed to confer jurisdiction on a Court then the same would be a sure recipe for judicial anarchy which this Court resolutely loathes promoting.
15. This last plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely based upon efflux of time since the illegalities committed by the petitioner and improvement of his status during the interregnum.
Such pleas have seldom found favour in such cases. In the case of Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate.And Secondary Education, Lahore and another (PLD 1971 SC 838) the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had observed that: "The argument appears to canvass that even where admission is obtained by dishonest representation or fraudulent means, it receives immunity after the lapse of one year. Lapse of time does not sanctify an action based on fraud and misrepresentation. --- --- ---- One of the particulars and statements required to be stated in the application is listed in Item No,14 of the application relating to .Division and marks obtained by the candidate in the Matriculation as well as Intermediate premedical examinations. Since the appellant's statement on this item in his application has been found to be wrong, the college authorities were perfectly within their rights to strike off the appellant's name. The learned counsel has, however, submitted that the position in which the appellant is now placed demands a commiserable and merciful consideration. The appellant has already taken his second year examination and has been provisionally promoted to the third year M.B.,B.S. Class. His expulsion from the college now would mean wastage of two precious years of his life. These considerations cannot matter with us in disposing of this case on a legal plane. The appellant may, if so advised, seek indulgence from the college authorities, who would be quite competent to give him the relief, if they feel inclined to do so despite this judgment by this Court." This judgment was referred with approval and quoted from by the Honourable Supreme Court in the latter case of Irfan Jamil Khan v. University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and others (1998 SCM R 2502) mentioned above. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner also overlooks the fact that the question of exercise of discretion in this case in fact weighs heavily against the petitioner rather than tilting in his favour. The discretion of this Court, is generally not exercised where it perpetuates an illegality or sustains retention of ill-gotten gains or in favour of a person coming to the Court with unclean hands It was held by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Qadri v. Principal, King Edward Medical College etc. (PLD 1982 SC 131) that: "It cannot be said that the statement contained in the affidavit was not relevant and the college authorities were not far wrong in insisting on an affidavit, because even that, in the present case, proved to be false. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary. It should not be exercised in favour of a person with unclean hands. The petitioner tried to seek admission to a medical college by making misrepresentations even if the motive, as now contended by his learned counsel to seek further education and that too for adopting an honourable profession was laudable, the means adopted in that behalf were such that on account of which the person concerned would disentitle himself to any relief in discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Same would apply to the prayer for leave to appeal, because the same is granted in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner disentitled himself in this behalf. The High Court rightly refused to grant him any relief.
The petition for leave to appeal also has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed." These observations were quoted with approval in the later case of Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa etc. (1983 SCM R 196) by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
16. In the present case it was on the quicksand of falsehood, misrepresentation and deception that the petitioner had erected his monument of success. He trampled the law for his personal ambitions and gains. He achieved improvement of his marks by lowering of his ethical standards.
He did that for getting into the medical profession. To him the end justified the means. Little did he know that the illegal and unethical means adopted by him for getting into the noble profession of medicine by themselves inherently disqualified him from an entry to such an ethical profession.
The unfortunate plight of the petitioner has, thus, failed to evoke my sympathy.
17. For the foregoing reasons this Writ Petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.