RAHIM BEGU Versus B.I.S.E
The case of the petitioner as made out in the writ petition is that he appeared as a private candidate under Roll No. 52888 in the Annual Inter mediate Examination 1964, and passed by securing 559 marks. It is admitted that in the gazette of result his name did not exist in the list of the candidates who were shown as having passed that examination.
However, his contention is that he was issued a "result‑card" intimating that he had passed. It is further alleged that he was also issued a regular certificate signed by the Controller of Examinations indicating that he had passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that there was no proof to establish that any "result‑card" or any regular certificate was issued to his client and all these contentions cannot be established by any concrete evidence in that respect. Needless to say that the stand of the department is that the petitioner was not issued any "result‑card" or any certificate and his plea of having passed the Annual 1964 Intermediate Examination. by securing 559 marks is not correct.
2. The case of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is that the petitioner appeared in 1953‑64 Examination under Roll No. 10156 wherein he failed in English, Urdu and Civics. The petitioner was a private candidate and the examination was that what is known as "Part I Examination".
The Board goes on to plead that in 1964 the petitioner again appeared but this time in Part Ii, under Roll No. 52888. The case of the Board is that the petitioner failed in this Examination. He secured 13 marks in Urdu, zero in English by in Islamic Studies and 12 in Civics oral. Annex. "R/It" is a copy of the result entries as contained in the record of the Board. The Board denies that they ever issued any "result‑card" or "pass‑certificate" to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 826/1971 which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench consisting of myself and my learned brother Salim Mazhar, J., on 13‑9‑1971. In that writ petition a prayer had been made by the petitioner that as he had already passed in the Examination, therefore, the department may be directed to issue him duplicate certificates. The writ petition was dismissed by observing that if at all the petitioner desired to obtain any certificate he should follow the necessary procedure which provided adequate remedy for the relief claimed and resort to writ jurisdiction was not justified.
4. After some time the petitioner filed a second writ petition bearing No. 41/1972 which was dismissed on 13‑9‑1972, by my learned brother S. Rehman, J. The learned Judge observed that the stand of the Board was that the petitioner had not passed any Intermediate Examination and this being a question of fact was not open to examination in the course of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner then filed a review application bearing No. 47/1972 which was dismissed by the same learned Judge on 31‑10‑1972. The effect of the dismissal of that writ petition is that the finding that the petitioner never passed any Intermediate Examination in 1964 is in operation and holds the field.
5. This is a third writ petition in the series. It is directed mainly against an order of the Disciplinary Committee, dated 2‑12‑ 972 (Annex. `F')‑whereby as a result o: certain disciplinary proceedings connected with the tampering of the result‑sheet of 1964 Examination etc., as hereinbefore mentioned, the petitioner was disqualified for six examina tions starting from Annual Supplementary, 1964, Annual Supplementary, 1965, and Annual Supplementary, 1966. This order was conveyed to the petitioner by means of a letter dated 7‑12‑1972‑(Annex. `G') which has also been impugned in this case. This writ petition has been filed in the context when on factual plan the petitioner never passed any Intermediate Examina tion in 1964 and thereafter hp was disqualified to appear in that Examination till 1966‑which attempt even otherwise he never made. The question whether such a prohibitory order could be passed at such a stage of the matter is left open, because, the writ petition can be disposed of in the manner hereinafter mentioned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to rule 5.18 of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore‑ (1962‑‑64 & 1963 ‑65)‑the result of a candidate cannot be quashed after more than two years‑(according to the old rule)‑and after more than four years‑(according to the newly amended rule;‑from the date of the declaration of the result of the Examination concerned. He' submitted that in the instant case the relevant Examination had taken place and its result bad been declared in 1954 whereas the impugned order was passed in year 1972, I.e. about eight years thereafter and, as such being in violation of rule 5.18 it was without lawful authority. The construction placed by the learned counsel on rule 5.18 has no application to the facts and the circumstances of the present case. Here on factual plane the petitioner never passed any Examination and as such the question of quashment of his result within the meaning of rule 5.18 does not arise.
7. From what has been written above it will be evident that the disqualification for appearing :n the Intermediate Examination extended only up to year 1966, which period has already run out. It is a common ground that the petitioner never appeared in any Intermediate Examination during that period and so far as the Intermediate Examination of 1964, itself is concerned he cannot prove that he ever passed the same. The writ petition, therefore. which inter alia purports to challenge the prohibition imposed upon the petitioner for appearing in any Intermediate Examination up to year 1966, is really infructuous and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. I order accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
S. A. H. Petition dismissed.